The largest single gift was from Miss Anthony"s old friend Mrs. Sarah L. Willis of Rochester, $5,250. Mrs. Susan Look Avery of Louisville, Ky., gave $1,199. Of nine gifts of $1,000 each, five were from Rochester women--Miss Mary S. Anthony, Mrs. Hannah M. Byam, Mrs. Mary H. Hallowell, Miss Ada Howe Kent and Miss Frances Baker. The other $1,000 gifts were from Mrs. Emma J. Bartol, George and Mary A. Burnham of Philadelphia; John C. Haynes of Boston; Mrs. Lydia c.o.o.nley Ward of Chicago. Among many interesting gifts may be noted one from the women of The Netherlands and one from the Portia Suffrage Club of New Orleans. Women students at the college made cla.s.s gifts from time to time but the fund grew slowly. After eight years it had reached $27,475. At this point the college authorities offered to complete the amount necessary for the building as planned, if the committee would turn over its money, which it gladly did. The cost was $58,763, the balance, which came to $31,288, being paid from the Co-education Fund raised by and for the women in 1900.
In the fall of 1914 the college girls took possession of the handsome gray stone building, bearing on its face, cut in stone, "Anthony Memorial." It contains a well-equipped gymnasium, a lunch room and four parlors for the social life of the students and the use of the Alumnae a.s.sociation. The possession of this building and Catherine Strong Hall, the two connected by a cloistered walk, has added greatly to the enjoyment and convenience of the women students. Miss Eddy"s half-length portrait of Miss Anthony hangs over the chimney-piece in the largest parlor and these rooms furnish a homelike place for their smaller social gatherings: larger affairs, such as the alumnae dinner, are held in the gymnasium. "Miss Anthony would certainly rejoice if she could look in on some February 15th and see the girls commemorating her birthday, as they do in some way every year," Mrs.
Gannett writes in sending information for this account.
Dr. Rush Rhees, president of the university, who has sent for this volume a picture of the Memorial Building and some additional information, says: "The building is in constant use and is a great contribution to the comfort, health and pleasure of our women students."
Friends of Miss Anthony gave a scholarship for women in her name and Miss Mary S. Anthony gave the money for one in her own name. The university has seven other scholarships for women.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER X.
STATEMENT BY MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT AT SENATE HEARING IN 1910
Although the Const.i.tution of the United States in section 2 of Article I seems to have relegated authority over the extension of the suffrage to the various States, yet, curiously, few men in the United States possess the suffrage because they or the cla.s.s to which they belong have secured their right to it by State action. The first voters were those who possessed the right under the original charters granted by the mother country and as the restrictions were many, including religious tests in most of the colonies and property qualifications in all, the number of actual voters was exceedingly small. When it became necessary at the close of the Revolution to form a federation for the "common defense" and the promotion of the "general welfare," it was obvious that citizenship must be made national. To do this it became clearly necessary that religious tests must be abandoned, since Catholic Maryland, Quaker Pennsylvania and Congregational Ma.s.sachusetts could be united under a common citizenship by no other method. The elimination of the religious test enfranchised a large number of men and this without a struggle or any movement in their behalf.
In 1790 the first naturalization law was pa.s.sed by Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation citizenship had belonged to the States but since it was apparent that it must now be national, a compromise was made between the old idea of State"s rights and the new idea of Federal union. Each of the original States had its representatives in the convention which drafted the Federal Const.i.tution and by common consent it was there planned that citizenship should carry with it the right to vote, although this was to be put into the State const.i.tutions and not into the National. These delegates, influencing their own States in the forming of their const.i.tutions, easily brought this about and without any movement on the part of those who were to be naturalized. This common understanding in the National Const.i.tutional Convention and the Naturalization Act of Congress in 1790 certainly enfranchised somewhere between three-fourths and four-fifths of all men in the United States at this time.
The population of the colonies at the time of the Revolution was two and a half millions and even though all men had been voters the number could not have been more than seven or eight hundred thousand. By the census of 1900 there were 21,000,000 men of voting age in the United States. The Act, therefore, of the U. S. Government virtually enfranchised millions upon millions of men. Generations then unborn have come into the right of the suffrage in this country under that Act and men of every nationality have availed themselves of its privileges to become voting citizens. Although, technically speaking, enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the foreign-born was extended by the States, yet in reality it is obvious that the real granting of this privilege came from Congress itself. The thirteen original States retained their property qualifications after the formation of the Union and these were removed by State amendments. This extension of the suffrage was made in most cases many years ago, when the electorate was very small in numbers.
The history of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the negro is well known. States attempted it by amending their const.i.tutions but in no case was this accomplished. Congress undertook to secure it by national amendment and although this was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the State Legislatures yet it must be remembered that all the southern States were virtually coerced into giving their consent.... The Indians were enfranchised by Acts of Congress.
The evolution of man suffrage in the United States shows that but one cla.s.s received their votes by direct State action--the nonproperty holders. They found political parties and statesmen to advocate their cause and their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt was made easy by State const.i.tutional action.
In the 120 years of our national life no cla.s.s of men have been forced to organize a movement in behalf of their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt; they have offered no pet.i.tion or plea or even given sign that the extension of suffrage to them would be acceptable. Yet American women, who have conducted a persistent, intelligent movement for a half-century, which has grown stronger and stronger with the years, appealing for their own enfranchis.e.m.e.nt and supported now by a pet.i.tion of 400,000 citizens of the United States are told that it is unnecessary to consider their plea since all women do not want to vote!
Gentlemen, is it not manifestly unfair to demand of women a test which has never been made in the case of men in this or any other country?
Is it not true that the att.i.tude of the Government toward an unenfranchised cla.s.s of men has ever been that the vote is a privilege to be extended and it is optional with the citizen whether or not he shall use it? If any proof is needed it can be found in the fact that the U. S. Government has no record whatever of the number who have been naturalized in this country. It has no record of the number of Indians who have accepted its offer of the vote as a reward for taking up land in severalty. Manifestly the Government, as represented by Congress and the State Legislatures, considers it entirely unnecessary to know whether men who have had the suffrage "thrust upon them" use it or not, but imperative that women must not only demand it in very large numbers but give guaranty that they will use it, before its extension shall be made to them.
Is it not likewise unfair to compel women to seek their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt by methods infinitely more difficult than those by means of which any man in this country has secured his right to a vote? Ordinary fair play should compel every believer in democracy and individual liberty, no matter what are his views on woman suffrage, to grant to women the easiest process of enfranchis.e.m.e.nt and that is the submission of a Federal Amendment.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIV.
THE SHAFROTH-PALMER WOMAN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT.
In 1914 the Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation, of which Mrs. Medill McCormick was chairman and Mrs. Antoinette Funk vice-chairman, caused to be introduced in Congress, with the sanction of the National Board, a Federal Amendment for woman suffrage radically different from the one for which the a.s.sociation had been working since 1869. It was named for its introducers in Senate and House. The merits of the proposed amendment, as stated by Mrs. Funk, which are given in condensed form in Chapter XIV, will be found in full in the published Handbook or Minutes of the national suffrage convention of this year. Specimens of the objections made as published in the _Woman"s Journal_ are given herewith:
Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch (Ills.), a lawyer: Senator Shafroth"s new suffrage amendment may do good by keeping law-makers discussing woman suffrage but as a practical method of securing it has serious defects. It is open to all the States"
rights objections raised against our Susan B. Anthony amendment,[154] for it goes further and proposes a universal method of amending 48 State const.i.tutions. State law-makers and Judges and even State voters from the North as well as the South will resent such dictation as an unwarrantable interference. The Initiative and Referendum scheme will have its own enemies, who will fear that this way may be an entering wedge for more Initiative and Referendum amendments to be pushed into State const.i.tutions.
The amendment is, however, too indefinitely framed to be workable. No officer is named to whom the pet.i.tions should go; no officer is obligated to submit the question; no method of authenticating the pet.i.tions is prescribed and no time for voting is fixed. The United States has no facilities of its own for conducting any such elections or punishing State or county officers who may not volunteer to do the work. The Congressional Committee would better keep this amendment in committee rather than let the country know the great objection there is to it on the part of our const.i.tuency....
Mrs. M. Tascan Bennett (Conn.): The three princ.i.p.al objections to the new amendment appear to be as follows: It divides suffragists all over the country. The Anthony Amendment has had the support since 1869 of the annual conventions, where the members of the National a.s.sociation have their one opportunity to direct its work. The Shafroth Amendment furnishes an excellent excuse to Congress for taking no action on the Anthony Amendment. It might well appear as a happy way to dispose of the whole question of woman suffrage by foisting responsibility for it back on the States where it already is.... It defeats what I consider to be the unanswerable advantage of the Anthony Amendment, whose ratification by the required three-fourths of the States will force the remaining one-fourth into line. The southern States, for whose special benefit the Shafroth Amendment appears to have been conceived, will undoubtedly be many years in accepting woman suffrage. With this new amendment ratified, they can still hold it back within their borders as long as they cling to their prejudices.
George H. Wright, M.D. (Conn.): The greatest objection is that, if pa.s.sed, this amendment would throw the whole suffrage campaign into chaos. At present when we have carried one State we stop worrying about that State. The women cannot again be disfranchised except by an amendment to the State const.i.tution, which would first have to pa.s.s a Legislature elected by the whole people. No such Legislature would dare to pa.s.s such a bill; the members who voted for it would accomplish nothing and would at once be ousted by their outraged women const.i.tuents. But under the Shafroth Amendment 8 per cent. of the voters could force a referendum on the question at any time.... Also a large part of the effort and money now used to gain new victories would be spent in defending what we had already won.
The Rev. Olympia Brown (Wis.), a pioneer suffragist: The pa.s.sage of the Shafroth Amendment is spoken of several times in the explanations and arguments for it as being an "endors.e.m.e.nt of woman suffrage by Congress." "Federal sanction," it is said, "would dignify the movement." This is another misnomer. There is no "indors.e.m.e.nt" by Congress and no "federal sanction" about it.
There is not even a hint that Congress favors woman suffrage. The amendment merely provides for the Initiative and Referendum in the States.
The _Woman"s Journal_ lately called attention to the statement twice made that "the effect of the amendment, if ratified, would be the same as if every State in the Union had pa.s.sed a suffrage amendment." This is a most singular a.s.sertion. If every State adopted a suffrage amendment our work would be done. Again: "The pa.s.sage of this resolution would have the same effect over the United States as if any other suffrage amendment had pa.s.sed."
Surely anyone can see that if the Anthony Amendment had been pa.s.sed by Congress the effect would be entirely different from that produced by the pa.s.sage of one merely giving the Initiative and Referendum to the States. And again: "If ratified, this amendment would have the same effect in every State as if a suffrage amendment had already pa.s.sed its Legislature." Even this is untrue. If any Legislature had submitted a suffrage amendment, the subject would at once go to the men to be voted on but by this method there must be a pet.i.tion signed by 8 per cent. of the voters....
One thing, however, seems to be ignored by all. When once an amendment to the Federal Const.i.tution is pa.s.sed and ratified by three-fourths of the Legislatures it becomes a part of the Const.i.tution and is fixed for all time. No amendment has ever yet been repealed but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to secure another amendment on the same subject, especially one providing for a course of action entirely different from the former.
Therefore, this Shafroth Amendment, if pa.s.sed, will place an impa.s.sable barrier to future Congressional action in behalf of woman suffrage. It simply refers the matter to the States. As a reason for pa.s.sing it, it is claimed that we cannot secure the submission of the original amendment. Perhaps not today or during this session of Congress; possibly not during this administration, but with the wonderful progress of our cause, the spread of the recognition of the rights of women and the "new doctrine of freedom," the demand for it will be overwhelming and it will be gained at no distant day.
Mrs. Ida Husted Harper, historian of the suffrage movement: In behalf of many loyal and experienced suffragists I wish to enter two strong protests--one against the resolution which has been presented in the U. S. Senate by Senator Shafroth of Colorado, by request of Mrs. Medill McCormick and Mrs. Antoinette Funk; the other against their statement made to Congress that they speak for the 642,000 members of the National American Suffrage a.s.sociation in offering this resolution.
The Congressional Committee, of which they are chairman and vice-chairman, was appointed, according to the understanding of the convention which met in Washington last fall, to work for the submission by Congress of the Federal Amendment for which the a.s.sociation has stood sponsor forty-five years. It was organized in 1869 for the express purpose of securing this amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of s.e.x." No other ever has been considered by the a.s.sociation.
When this committee opened its headquarters in Washington the National Board asked contributions for its support through the _Woman"s Journal_, saying: "The speedy submission of this Federal Amendment is of vital concern to every suffragist." Later it announced: "The Washington office will be occupied largely with the political end of the Federal Amendment campaign, while a Chicago office will specialize in the work of organizing the congressional districts of the United States in cooperation with the various State a.s.sociations." All this, of course, was for the old, original amendment. No experienced suffragist expected it to receive the necessary two-thirds vote this session, but, as it had been reported favorably to the Senate, the desire was to have it brought to a discussion; to secure as large a vote as possible and to ascertain which members were friends and which were enemies. In spite of most unfavorable conditions this was accomplished and the amendment received a majority. There were no more negative votes than when it was acted upon in 1887 by the Senate and over twice as many favorable votes. The opposition was based almost entirely on the doctrine of State"s rights, as was to be expected; but three Southern Senators voted in the affirmative. Before another session of Congress several more States are certain to be carried for woman suffrage, thus insuring more votes for this Federal Amendment. The defeat of suffrage bills in a number of Legislatures in the South is converting the women of that section to the necessity of action by Congress. Just at the most favorable moment in the entire history of this amendment, the committee having it in charge suddenly throws it on the dust heap; has another introduced of a radically different character, and announces to the public that this is done with the sanction of the National Board and that it represents the sentiment of the 642,000 members of the National American a.s.sociation!... In behalf of countless members of this a.s.sociation, I protest against this high-handed action. I insist that the National Board exceeded its prerogatives when it sanctioned so radical and complete a change in the time-honored policy of the a.s.sociation without first bringing it before a national convention and giving the delegates a chance to pa.s.s upon it. The proposed amendment seems undesirable from every point of view....
These and all protests were answered by Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, editor of the _Woman"s Journal_, generally recognized as high authority by the suffragists of the country. Throughout the months of controversy she kept up a vigorous defense and advocacy of the Shafroth Amendment, saying: "The old amendment has not been dropped and many of us believe that the new amendment will pave the way for the pa.s.sage of the old one. Most of the suffragists are much attached to the old nation-wide amendment. If any proposal should be made at the next national convention to drop it the proposal could hardly carry, or, if it did, the resulting dissatisfaction would greatly weaken the National a.s.sociation, but at present nothing of the sort is proposed." She did, however, say in mild criticism:
The National Board has authority to decide questions that come up in the interim between the national conventions. On the other hand it has never before had to pa.s.s upon anything so important as committing the a.s.sociation to the advocacy of a wholly new amendment to the U.S. Const.i.tution. It would probably have been the part of wisdom to get a vote of the National Executive Council. This would not have taken long and would have saved considerable hard feeling and perplexity. The approval of the majority of the Council could probably have been had, for there is no earthly ground for objecting to the Shafroth Amendment when it is thoroughly understood. It merely furnishes a short cut to amendments in the States--a method which any State could use or not as it chose. Supposing the Shafroth Amendment to have pa.s.sed Congress and been ratified, if the suffragists of any State preferred the old way of amending their State const.i.tution, it would still be open. The Shafroth Amendment would lay no compulsion upon any State; it would only take snags out of the way of amendments in those States where the snags are now very thick.
Feeling on this subject is more acute than it needs to be because the suffrage atmosphere just now is highly charged with electricity. The Shafroth Amendment is a first-rate little amendment and the sooner it pa.s.ses the better.
The National Convention at Nashville in November, 1914, after many hours of heated discussion, finally adopted a resolution that it should be the policy of the a.s.sociation to "support by every means within its power the Anthony Amendment and to support such other legislation as the National Board might authorize to the end that the Anthony resolution should become law." (Minutes, p. 26.) At the convention of December, 1915, in Washington it was voted that the last year"s action in regard to the Shafroth Amendment be rescinded; that the a.s.sociation re-indorse the Anthony Amendment and that no other be introduced by it during the coming year. (Minutes, page 43.) This ended the matter for all time.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV.
FROM ADDRESS OF DR. ANNA HOWARD SHAW WHEN RESIGNING THE PRESIDENCY OF THE NATIONAL AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE a.s.sOCIATION, DEC. 15, 1915.
After a brief sketch of the condition of the world after a year and a half of the war in Europe, the address continued:
As an a.s.sociation we are confronted through the eternal law of progress by changes in our methods such as we have not met since the union of the two national societies in 1890. Our enlarged and expanding status as an a.s.sociation, the new and varied duties which devolve upon us and the innumerable demands increasing with the acc.u.mulation of means and workers call for a new kind of service in leadership. Political necessity has supplanted the reform epoch; the reapers of the harvest have replaced the ploughman and seed sower, each equally needed in the process of the cultivation and the development of an ideal as in the harvest of the land. When this movement began its pioneers were reformers, people who saw a vision and dreamed dreams of the time when all mankind should be free and all human beings have an equal opportunity under the law. Other reformers became possessed by it, and, following it in the spirit of Him who cried, "I was not disobedient to the Heavenly vision," they went forth proclaiming it to the world, knowing that misunderstanding, misrepresentation and persecution would combine to make the task difficult. It was not that they sought persecution but that they loved justice and freedom more than escape from it--these pioneers of the greatest political reform which history recounts.
Year after year the task has been carried forward until the time has come when "new occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth," and the idealist and the reformer are supplanted in our movement by the politician. Our cause has pa.s.sed beyond the stage of academic discussion and has entered the realm of practical politics. The time has come when our organized machinery must be political in its character and work along political lines directed by political leaders....
The United States is looked upon as being the most powerful neutral nation, which with its high human ideal is the best equipped to present its good offices in mediation between the warring nations of the East, but is this true? What better preparation could it make than by removing from within its own borders the very cause which led to the present barbarous conditions across the sea?... How can the United States, in any spirit of a truly great nation, offer its services as mediator when it is following the same line of action towards its own people? How can it plead for justice in the East when it denies this to its own women? How can it claim that written agreements between nations are binding when it violates the fundamental principles of its own National Const.i.tution which declare that "the right of the citizen to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State," and for forty-five years Congress has turned a deaf ear to the appeal of our own citizens for protection under this law? Is it true that the United States Const.i.tution too is but a "sc.r.a.p of paper" to be repudiated at will? If, as a mediator of justice, we hold out our hands to lift other nations from the abyss into which injustice has plunged them, they must be clean hands. Our words must ring true....
Many appeals will be made to our a.s.sociation to abandon its one purpose of securing votes for women and turn its attention and organized machinery to the real or imaginary dangers which beset us as a nation, but let us never for a moment forget the specious promises and a.s.surances that were given to the pioneers, who, when the Civil War took place, gave up their a.s.sociated work and turned their efforts to its demand in the belief that when the war was over the country would recognize their patriotic services and the dependence of the nation upon women in war as in peace and reward them with the ballot, the crowning symbol of citizenship. But instead of recognizing their service and rewarding the loyal women, the cry went forth: "This is the negroes" hour. Let the women wait"--and they are still waiting.
As they wait they are not blind to the fact that this nation did what no other nation has ever done, when it voluntarily made its former slaves the sovereign rulers of its loyal and patriotic women.
The greatest service suffragists can render their country and through it the whole world at this time, is to teach it that there is no s.e.x in love of individual liberty and to stand without faltering by their demand for justice and equality of political rights for men and women.
Dr. Shaw impressed upon the workers, especially the younger ones, not to be discouraged at what seemed slow progress and said:
It has been the privilege of your president to partic.i.p.ate actively in twenty-four out of twenty-seven State campaigns; in the New Hampshire const.i.tutional convention campaign, the Wheeling munic.i.p.al campaign and directly though not actively in all the others except that of Illinois. The vote cast upon the amendments but inadequately expresses the expanding sentiment in behalf of woman suffrage and it needs only consecrated, persistent, systematic service to reach the goal and complete the task begun by the pioneers of 1848 and led by Susan B. Anthony until her death in 1906. While we accept as our motto her last public utterance, "Failure is impossible," we must also remember her prophetic words, uttered just before she laid down her life work: "There is nothing which can ultimately prevent the triumph of our cause but the time of its coming depends largely upon the loyalty and devotion of those who believe in it." ...