APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIV.
THE SHAFROTH-PALMER WOMAN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT.
In 1914 the Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, 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 association 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 constitutions. 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 constitutions.
The amendment is, however, too indefinitely framed to be workable. No officer is named to whom the petitions should go; no officer is obligated to submit the question; no method of authenticating the petitions 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 constituency....
Mrs. M. Tascan Bennett (Conn.): The three principal 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 Association 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 passed, 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 constitution, which would first have to pass a Legislature elected by the whole people. No such Legislature would dare to pass such a bill; the members who voted for it would accomplish nothing and would at once be ousted by their outraged women constituents. 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 passage of the Shafroth Amendment is spoken of several times in the explanations and arguments for it as being an "endorsement of woman suffrage by Congress." "Federal sanction," it is said, "would dignify the movement." This is another misnomer. There is no "indorsement" 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 passed a suffrage amendment." This is a most singular assertion. If every State adopted a suffrage amendment our work would be done. Again: "The passage of this resolution would have the same effect over the United States as if any other suffrage amendment had passed." Surely anyone can see that if the Anthony Amendment had been passed by Congress the effect would be entirely different from that produced by the passage 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 passed 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 petition signed by 8 per cent. of the voters....
One thing, however, seems to be ignored by all. When once an amendment to the Federal Constitution is passed and ratified by three-fourths of the Legislatures it becomes a part of the Constitution 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 passed, will place an impassable barrier to future Congressional action in behalf of woman suffrage. It simply refers the matter to the States. As a reason for passing 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 Association 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 association 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 sex." No other ever has been considered by the association.
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 associations." 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 Association!... In behalf of countless members of this association, 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 association without first bringing it before a national convention and giving the delegates a chance to pass 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 passage 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 Association, 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 pass upon anything so important as committing the association to the advocacy of a wholly new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 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 passed Congress and been ratified, if the suffragists of any State preferred the old way of amending their State constitution, 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 passes 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 association 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 association 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.