That was the crux of the whole situation. The Democrats had been manaeuvered into a position where they could neither afford to move to refer the amendment back to the committee, nor could they afford to press it to a losing vote. They were indeed in an exceedingly embarrassing predicament.
Throughout hours of debate, Senator Pittman could not get away from the militants. Again and again, he recited our deeds of protest, our threats of reprisal, our relentless strategy of holding his party responsible for defeat or victory.
“I should like the Senator,” interpolated Senator Poindexter of Washington, Republican, “so long as he is discussing the action of the pickets, to explain to the Senate whether or not it is the action of the pickets . . . the militant . . . woman’s party, that caused the President to change his attitude on the subject. Was he coerced into supporting this measure—after he had for years opposed it—because he was picketed? When did the President change his attitude? If it was not because he was picketed, will the Senator explain what was the cause of the change in the President’s attitude?”
Mr. Pittman did not reply directly to these questions.
Senator Reed of Missouri, anti-Administration Democrat, consumed hours reading into the Congressional Record various press reports of militant activities. He dwelt particularly upon the news headlines, such as,
“Great Washington Crowd Cheers Demonstration at White House by National Woman’s Party.” . . .
“Suffragists Burn Wilson ‘Idle Words’ . . .”
“Money Instead of Jeers Greet Marchers and Unique Protest Against Withholding Vote” . . .
“Apply Torch to President’s Words . . . Promise to Urge Passage of Amendment Not Definite Enough for Militants.”
“Suff’s Burn Speech . . .,Apply Torch to Wilson’s Words During Demonstration-Symbol of ‘Indignation’—Throngs Witnessing Doings in Lafayette Square Orderly and Contribute to Fund—President Receives Delegation of American Suffrage Association Women.”