The House had appeared more favorable than the Senate and it seemed certain that it would pa.s.s that body. On February 18, five days after the measure had pa.s.sed the Senate, Senator Jacobson moved that it be recalled from the House, where it had had its first and second readings and been referred to the Committee on Elections. This motion was carried by 26 to 22. The opponents at once gathered their forces.
Judge N. C. Young of Fargo, attorney for the Northern Pacific Railway, and Mrs. Young, president of the State Anti-Suffrage a.s.sociation, arrived immediately and began lobbying, Judge Young even appearing on the floor of the Senate chamber.[138] The German vote was promised to ambitious politicians and a desired change of the county seat was offered. The Senate not having the necessary two-thirds to kill the resolution refused by a majority vote to take action upon it. It should then have gone automatically back to the House but the president of the Senate, Lieutenant Governor Fraine, withheld it until the Legislature adjourned. The chief opponents during these years were the old Republican "stand-patters," who controlled the political "machine," and Judge Young was one of the most prominent. Success came with its overthrow.
1917. The Legislative Committee consisted of Mrs. Clendening and Mrs.
Weible. On January 14 Senator Oscar Lindstrom introduced a Presidential and Munic.i.p.al suffrage bill, written by Senator Pollock at Mrs. Anderson"s request. It was modelled on the Illinois bill and beginning with July 1 it ent.i.tled women to vote for Presidential electors, county surveyors and constables and for all officers of cities, villages and towns excepting police magistrates and city justices of the peace. A concurrent resolution providing for an amendment to the State const.i.tution to give full suffrage to women was also introduced. Both were pa.s.sed on January 16 by the same vote, 37 ayes, 11 noes in the Senate; 89 ayes, 19 noes in the House, and were the first measures signed by Governor Lynn J. Frazier, on the 23rd.
This Legislature and also the one of 1919 adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to submit the Federal Woman Suffrage Amendment. Four of the five North Dakota members were then in favor of it and in 1918 the hesitating Senator made the delegation unanimous.
The State Referendum a.s.sociation and the Anti-Suffrage a.s.sociation made an attempt to secure a pet.i.tion for a referendum to the voters of the Presidential and Munic.i.p.al suffrage bill, but although less than 11,000 names were required only a few thousand were filed with the Secretary of State and there was considerable difficulty in securing those. Affidavits were sent to the Suffrage a.s.sociation proving that many names were obtained by fraud.
1919. The Legislature pa.s.sed the concurrent resolution providing for an amendment to the const.i.tution giving women full suffrage, which had gone through that of 1917. The vote in the Senate was 43 ayes, 1 no, with 5 absent; in the House 98 ayes, no negative, with 15 absent. It was to be voted on Nov. 2, 1920. Before that date the Federal Amendment had been submitted by Congress and ratified by thirty-seven Legislatures.
RATIFICATION. The Legislature met in special session Dec. 2, 1919, and ratified by the following vote: Senate, 41 ayes, 4 noes with 3 absent; House 102 ayes, 6 noes. Nevertheless the vote on the State amendment had to be taken on Nov. 2, 1920, and it stood: Ayes, 129,628; noes, 68,569. Thousands of women voted at this election.
On April 1, 1920, the State Votes for Women League met and was re-organized as the League of Women Voters, with Mrs. Kate S. Wilder of Fargo chairman.
FOOTNOTES:
[137] The History is indebted for this chapter to Mrs. Emma S. Pierce, vice-president of the State Votes for Women League.
[138] A field worker for a philanthropic organization, who had a room in a hotel in Bismarck, the capital, next to one occupied by the representative of the liquor interests, heard him send a long distance telephone message to Mrs. Young for her and the Judge to come on the first train, as they were needed. She heard another one say: "If the d----n women get the ballot there will be no chance of re-submitting the prohibition amendment."
CHAPTER x.x.xIV.
OHIO.[139]
The history of woman suffrage in Ohio is a long one, for the second woman"s rights convention ever held took place at Salem, in April, 1850, and the work never entirely ceased. Looking back over it since 1900, when the Ohio chapter for Volume IV ended, one is conscious of the wonderful spirit manifested in the State a.s.sociation. Other States did more spectacular work and had larger organizations but none finished its tasks with a stronger spirit of loyalty and love for the work and the workers.
The State Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation was organized in 1885 and held annual conventions for the next thirty-five years, at which capable officers were elected who were consecrated to their duties. From 1899 to 1920 Mrs. Harriet Taylor Upton was president, with the exception of the three years 1908-1911, when the office was filled by Mrs. Pauline Steinem of Toledo. During the first twenty years of the present century but one year, that of 1911, pa.s.sed without a State convention.[140] For over twenty years the State headquarters were in Warren, the home of Mrs. Upton.
On May 4, 5, 1920, the final convention of the Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation was held in Columbus and with its work finished the State League of Women Voters was organized, with Miss Amy G. Maher as chairman.
The devotion, the efficiency, the self-sacrifice of the suffrage workers in Ohio will never be known. Their strength lay in their cooperation. To give their names and their work would fill all the s.p.a.ce allowed for this chapter but one exception should in justice be made. Elizabeth J. Hauser from her childhood days until the Federal Amendment was ratified gave her life to woman"s enfranchis.e.m.e.nt.
Painstaking, fearless, unselfish and able, she labored cheerfully, not caring for praise or credit for the things she accomplished. A good executive, organizer, legislative worker, speaker and writer, she was a power in the counsels of the suffragists. To her more than to any other woman do Ohio women owe a debt of grat.i.tude.[141]
From the first gathering of Ohio suffragists in 1850 until Tennessee spoke the last word in 1920, few years pa.s.sed when some suffrage measure was not asked for and few Legislatures went out of existence without having considered some legislation referring to women. In 1894 a law gave them the right to vote for members of the boards of education. In 1904 and 1905, the Legislature was asked to submit to the voters an amendment to the State const.i.tution giving full suffrage to women but the resolution was not reported out of the committees. In 1908 it was reported but no vote was taken. In 1910 it was defeated on the floor. This was the experience for years.
Periodically attempts had been made to revise the State const.i.tution of 1851 without success but the Legislature of 1910 provided for submitting to the voters the question of calling a convention, which was carried in the fall of that year. The convention was to be non-partisan. The suffragists interviewed the delegates on putting woman suffrage in the new const.i.tution and the poll was complete when the convention opened. The moment the president was chosen, the suffrage leaders asked for a friendly committee and from that time to the very last moment they were at work. The proposition for a woman suffrage clause was introduced Jan. 22, 1912; a pro-hearing was held February 8; an anti-hearing followed by a public meeting was had February 14 and the following day it was favorably reported out of committee by a vote of 20 to 1.
Interests, vicious and commercial, fought the suffrage amendment from every possible angle but on March 7 the convention adopted it by a vote of 76 to 34. If accepted by the voters it would eliminate the words "white male" from Section 1, Article V, of the present const.i.tution. The enemies secured the submission of a separate amendment eliminating the word "white." This was done to alienate the negro vote from the suffrage amendment and the negroes were told that it was a shame they should be "tied to the women"s ap.r.o.n strings."
The new const.i.tution was made by adding amendments to the old one and the suffrage amendment went in with the rest. William B. Kirkpatrick, chairman of the Equal Suffrage Committee of the convention, more than any one was responsible for the acceptance of the amendment. Through the whole convention he fought for it, sacrificing many things near his heart--they could wait, this was the chance for woman suffrage.
The amendment was numbered "23" and at that time this number was considered unlucky. The most illiterate could remember to vote against that "23." The const.i.tution was ready on May 31 and the special election was set for Sept. 3, 1912. Three months of vigorous campaign for the amendment followed. The German-American Alliance and the Personal Liberty League, two a.s.sociations representing the brewers"
interests, fought it in the field as they had done in the convention.
It was estimated that the suffragists spent $40,000 and it was learned that the liquor forces first appropriated $500,000 and later added $120,000 to defeat the suffrage amendment. The chief work of the suffragists was done in the cities, although women spoke at picnics, county fairs, family reunions, circuses, beaches, inst.i.tutes, labor meetings, at country stores, school houses and cross roads. More than fifty workers came into Ohio from all directions to a.s.sist, the larger number from the eastern States. They received no financial recompense and gave splendid service. In August an impressive suffrage parade of 5,000 took place in Columbus.
The president of the German-American Alliance at a meeting in Youngstown boasted openly that it defeated the amendment. It advertised everywhere, by posters and in street cars, and had no voluntary workers. It was evident that huge sums were being spent. The amendment was lost by a majority of 87,455--ayes, 249,420; noes, 336,875. Only 24 out of 88 counties were carried and but one Congressional district, the Eighteenth.
There was never any state-wide anti-suffrage a.s.sociation of women but only small groups in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus. Most of them were rich, well situated, not familiar with organized reform work and not knowing the viciousness of their a.s.sociates. The real foe was the a.s.sociated liquor men, calling themselves at first the Personal Liberty League, later the Home Rule a.s.sociation, appearing under different names in different campaigns and they had in their employ a few women who were connected with the Anti-Suffrage a.s.sociation. The amendment was lost in 1912 because of the activity of the liquor interests and the indifference of the so-called good people. More men voted on this question, pro and con, than had ever voted on woman suffrage before in any State.
The amendment eliminating the word "white," left over from ante bellum days, also was defeated and the new const.i.tution retained a clause which had been nullified by the 15th Amendment to the National Const.i.tution forty years before! The initiative and referendum amendment was carried. The State Suffrage a.s.sociation, therefore, early in 1913, decided to circulate a pet.i.tion initiating a woman suffrage amendment to the const.i.tution, as there was no hope that the Legislature would submit one. It required the signatures of ten per cent. of the voters at the last election, in this instance 130,000 names. It was drawn by an Ohio member of Congress, received at State headquarters April 15, submitted to the Attorney General and held many weeks. When returned, instructions were carefully followed. On September 15 the first pet.i.tion heads were received from the printer.
It was a new law and lawyers and laymen were uncertain about it. The question of the validity of the pet.i.tions if circulated by women was raised and a ruling was asked for. The Secretary of State decided that women could circulate them and the Attorney General agreed. It was feared by some that the pet.i.tion head was faulty because it did not contain a repeal clause and after three weeks of anxious waiting the opinion was given that this was not necessary. Then arose another point, that the names of the committee standing for the pet.i.tion must be on it. This constant objecting and obstructing led the suffrage leaders, upon advice of their attorney, to withdraw the pet.i.tion and await the action of the special session of the Legislature. It pa.s.sed the initiative and referendum safeguarding measure, which the Governor signed Feb. 17, 1914, and all uncertainties seemed over.
Determined to have a perfect copy for the pet.i.tion head the suffragists had it prepared by the State Legislative Reference Department and the Secretary of State orally approved it. At the headquarters it was noticed that the words, "Be it resolved by the people of Ohio," which the const.i.tution specifically provided must be on pet.i.tion heads and which had been on the first one, had been omitted. They asked the Secretary of State whether this jeopardized the pet.i.tion and it was his opinion that it did, although he had approved it. The Attorney General finally gave it official sanction and the first pet.i.tions were put out in March, 1914, after one year"s continuous effort to get them into circulation. Who but women fighting for their freedom could ever have had the courage to keep on? They had no money to pay circulators and all was volunteer work. Over 2,000 women circulated these pet.i.tions. To have more than 130,000 men write their names and addresses on a pet.i.tion and the circulator see them do it and swear that she did was no light task but it was accomplished.
On July 30 pet.i.tions bearing 131,271 names were filed with the Secretary of State. A pet.i.tion was secured in every county, although the law requires them from a majority only, and each was presented by a worker from that county. The sight of scores of men and women with arms laden with pet.i.tions marching up to the State House to deposit them brought tears to the eyes of some of the onlookers.
The campaign opened in Toledo, April 14, 15, was hectic. Everything possible was done to bring the amendment to the attention of the voters. Cleveland suffragists put on a beautiful pageant, A Dream of Freedom. A pilgrimage was made to the Friends" Meeting House in Salem where the suffrage convention of 1850 was held and the resolutions of those pioneers were re-adopted by a large, enthusiastic audience.
Women followed party speakers, taking their audiences before and after the political meeting. State conventions of all sorts were appealed to and many gave endors.e.m.e.nt, those of the Republicans and the Democrats refusing. Groups of workers would visit a county, separate and canva.s.s all the towns and then keep up their courage by returning to the county seat at night and comparing notes. Street meetings and noon meetings for working people were held. Everything which had been tried out in any campaign was done.
From the beginning of 1913 to the election in November, 1914, there was constant work done for the amendment. The total number of votes cast on it was 853,685; against, 518,295; for 335,390; lost by 182,905 votes. There were gains in every county but only 14 were carried, where there had been 24 in 1912.
That the liquor interests and the anti-suffragists worked together was clearly established. The Sat.u.r.day preceding the election the president of the State Suffrage a.s.sociation saw in her own city of Warren a man distributing literature from door to door and accompanied by a witness she followed him and picked up several packages in different parts of the city. They contained two leaflets, one giving information on how to vote on the Home Rule or "wet" amendment, the other giving instructions how to vote against the suffrage amendment. The latter had a facsimile ballot marked against it and was signed by five women.
The _Liberal Advocate_ of Oct. 21, 1914, (official organ of the liquor interests), published at Columbus, had a picture and a write-up of Mrs. A. J. George of Brookline, a speaker from the Ma.s.sachusetts Anti-Suffrage a.s.sociation, with a headline saying that she would be present at a luncheon of anti-suffragists on the 27th in that city and also speak elsewhere in the State.
After the defeats of 1912 and 1914 the suffragists abandoned the idea of carrying an amendment. The revised const.i.tution provided for "home rule" for cities, which allowed them to adopt their own charters instead of going to the Legislature. Suffragists believed that these charters could provide for woman suffrage in munic.i.p.al affairs. In 1916 East Cleveland decided to frame a charter and they saw a chance to make a test. This campaign was the work of the Woman Suffrage Party of Greater Cleveland. On June 6 a city charter was submitted to the voters and adopted including woman suffrage. A suit was brought to test its const.i.tutionality and it was argued in the Supreme Court, one of the lawyers being a woman, Miss Florence E. Allen.[142] By agreement between the court and election officials women voted at the regular munic.i.p.al election in November. The court upheld its validity April 3, 1917, and the const.i.tutionality of Munic.i.p.al woman suffrage in charter cities was established.
In the fall of 1917 the women of Lakewood, a city adjoining Cleveland on the west, gave munic.i.p.al suffrage to its women by charter after a vigorous campaign. Columbus undertook to put this in its charter and a bitter campaign took place. It was the house to house canva.s.s and the courageous work of the Columbus women and State suffrage officers which brought the victory when it was voted on at the election in August, 1917. Sandusky was not successful.
A partial poll of the Legislature on the subject of Presidential suffrage for women in 1915 had shown that it would be futile to attempt it but after endors.e.m.e.nts of woman suffrage by the national party conventions in 1916 it was determined to try.
The Legislature of 1917 was Democratic and Representative James A.
Reynolds (Cleveland) met the State suffrage workers upon their arrival in Columbus for the opening of the session and informed them that he was going to sponsor their bill. On January 16 Representative Pratt, Republican, of Ashtabula and Mr. Reynolds, Democrat, each introduced a measure for Presidential suffrage. By agreement the Reynolds bill was chosen and he fought the battle for it against great odds. He was the one anti-prohibitionist who worked for it, considering it his duty and his privilege, and, because of his standing and because his party was in power, he was the only one perhaps who could have carried it through. He stood by the suffragists until Tennessee had ratified and the contest was over.
On Jan. 30, 1917, the bill to give women a vote for Presidential electors was reported favorably from the House Committee on Elections, and on February 1 it pa.s.sed the House by 72 ayes, 50 noes, fifty-five per cent. of the Democratic members voting for it and sixty-nine per cent of the Republicans. In the Senate the leader of the "wets"
introduced a resolution for the submission of a full suffrage amendment in the hope of sidetracking the Reynolds bill but the latter reached the Senate February 2, before the Holden bill could be considered. The suffragists, wishing to expedite matters, did not ask for a hearing but the "antis" did and at Mr. Reynolds" request the former were present. At this hearing the women leaders of the "antis"
and the liquor men occupied seats together on the floor of the Senate.
The next morning the bill was reported favorably from the Federal Relations Committee and pa.s.sed on February 14, by 19 ayes, 17 noes.
Immediately the leader of the opposition changed his vote to yes in order to move a reconsideration. This he was not permitted to do because a friend of the measure forced the reconsideration the next day, and as this was lost by a vote of 24 to 10, the bill itself went on record as having received the vote of the "wet" leader and having pa.s.sed by 20 to 16. Governor James M. c.o.x signed it Feb. 21.
Very soon the opponents opened headquarters in Columbus and circulated pet.i.tions to have the Presidential suffrage bill referred to the voters for repeal. The story of these pet.i.tions is a disgraceful one.
Four-fifths of the signatures were gathered in saloons, the pet.i.tions kept on the back and front bars. Hundreds of names were certified to by men who declared they saw them signed, an impossibility unless they stood by the bar eighteen hours each day for some weeks and watched every signature. Some pet.i.tions, according to the dates they bore, were circulated by the same men in different counties on the same day.
Some of them had whole pages of signatures written in the same hand and some had names only, no addresses. The suffragists copied some of these pet.i.tions after they were filed in Columbus and although the time was short brought suit to prove them fraudulent in six counties.
In four the court ordered all but a few names thrown out. In Scioto all the names were rejected and in Cuyahoga county (Cleveland), 7,000 names were thrown out. The pet.i.tions in Franklin county (Columbus), Lucas (Toledo) and Montgomery (Dayton) were unquestionably fraudulent but the election boards were hostile to woman suffrage and powerful with the courts and refused to bring cases. When suffrage leaders attempted to intervene the courts declared they had no jurisdiction.
The suffragists were on duty in Columbus from January to October,--long, weary, exciting months. It was clearly proved in the cases brought that the pet.i.tions were fraudulently circulated, signed, attested and certified. In the course of an attempt to bring a case against Franklin county a ruling of the Common Pleas Court was that the Secretary of State should be restrained from counting the signatures from seventeen counties because the Board of Elections had not properly certified them. The Secretary of State telegraphed these boards and they certified again, although there is no const.i.tutional or statutory provision for recertification. Nevertheless when these corrected certifications were made the Judge dissolved the injunction and 17,000 names were restored to the pet.i.tion. U. S. Senator Warren G. Harding in a Decoration Day speech at Columbus declared himself decidedly opposed to accepting this referendum.
Cases were brought to the Supreme Court via the Court of Appeals, one a general suit demanding that pet.i.tions from certain counties be rejected because they were fraudulent and insufficient, the other to mandamus the Secretary of State to give the suffragists a hearing to prove their charges. The first was dismissed, the Supreme Court saying it had no jurisdiction over a case which had not been finished in the court from which the appeal had been taken. They returned to the Court of Appeals and tried one case on the const.i.tutionality of the law of 1915, which gives the Board of Elections and Common Pleas Judges the right to examine the pet.i.tions and pa.s.s upon their validity, instead of the Secretary of State. The court decided to give no decision as election was so near at hand.
The law made no provision to meet the expenses of pet.i.tion suits and the suffragists had to bear the cost, no small undertaking. The election boards which were dominated by politicians who had been notorious for their opposition to suffrage, interposed every possible obstacle to the attempt of the suffragists to uncover fraud. In some counties it was impossible to bring cases. Women were absorbed in war work and thousands of them bitterly resented the fact that at such a time their right to vote should be questioned. The referendum was submitted with the proposal so worded on the ballot that it was extremely difficult to know whether to vote yes or no.
At the election in November, 1917, the majority voted in favor of taking away from women the Presidential suffrage. The vote for retaining it was 422,262; against, 568,382; the law repealed by a majority of 146,120. More votes were polled in 1917 than in 1914. The law was upheld in 15 counties, in 11 of which suffrage had then carried three times.
Ohio suffragists now turned their attention entirely towards national work. It was apparent that while the liquor interests continued their fight, women with a few thousand dollars, working for principle, could never overcome men with hundreds of thousands of dollars working for their own political and financial interests. Intensive organized congressional work was carried on henceforth for the Federal Suffrage Amendment. When the vote on it was taken in the House of Representatives Jan. 10, 1918, eight of Ohio"s twenty-two Congressmen voted for it. Three years before, Jan. 12, 1915, only five had voted in favor. In the U. S. Senate, Oct. 1, 1918, Senator Atlee Pomerene voted No; Senator Warren G. Harding paired in favor. On Feb. 10, 1919, Senator Harding voted Yes; Senator Pomerene No.