After all the years of patient effort to persuade Legislatures to grant Presidential suffrage to women under the inspiration of Henry B. Blackwell, chairman of the committee, his successor, Miss Elizabeth Upham Yates, could announce the first success and she emphasized the important bearing which this and others would have on securing a Federal Amendment. Her report said:
The extraordinary victory in Illinois has emphasized the fact, not duly apprehended hitherto, that State Legislatures have power to grant Presidential suffrage to women. No man derives his right to vote for presidential electors from the constitution of his State but the U. S. Constitution delegates the power and duty to qualify citizens to vote for them to the Legislatures, in the first section of Article II, in these words: "Each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress." Probably U.S. Senator George F. Hoar was the first to discover that this power given to Legislatures involved the possibility of the enfranchisement of women for presidential electors.
The conspicuous position that women suddenly attained in American politics in 1912 was due to the fact that in six States women were able to determine the choice of thirty-seven presidential electors. The large interests involved in a presidential administration, among which are 300,000 offices of honor and emolument, cause keen political concern from the fact that women voters may hold the balance of power in a close election. The whole number of electoral votes in the nine States where women now have full suffrage is fifty-four. These were attained by campaigns for constitutional amendments that involved vast outlay of time and treasure. Simply by act of Legislature, Illinois has added twenty-nine to the list, an increase of over thirty-three per cent., thus bringing an incalculable influence and power into the arena of national politics....
Mrs. Mary E. Craigie made her usual report of the excellent work done by her Church Committee. She gave a list of the Catholic clergy who had declared in favor of woman suffrage and told of the cordial assent by those of other denominations to include it in their sermons on Mother's Day. She named some of the many questions of social reform to which pulpits were freely opened—temperance, child labor, pure food, the white slave traffic and others—and asked: "Why does not woman suffrage, the reform that would bring two-thirds more power to all such movements, receive the same cooperation and support from the churches? The answer plainly is: Because of the apathy of women in demanding it."
The changing character of the national suffrage conventions is illustrated by the reports in the Woman's Journal, whose editors had for a generation collected and preserved in its pages the unsurpassed addresses which had delighted audiences and inspired workers. As the practical work of the association increased and spread throughout the different States, more and more of the time of the conventions had to be given to reports and details of business and the number of speeches constantly lessened. The first evening of the convention was devoted to the victory in Illinois, with delightful addresses by Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch, long the State president, who twenty years before had discovered the loophole in the Illinois constitution by which the Legislature itself could grant a large measure of suffrage to women and had tried to obtain the law that had just been gained; by Mrs. Ella S. Stewart, another president, who had carried on this work; and by Mesdames Ruth Hanna McCormick, Grace Wilbur Trout, Antoinette Funk and Elizabeth K. Booth, the famous quartette of younger workers, who had finally succeeded with a progressive Legislature. As there was no representative from far-off Alaska, Dr. Shaw told how its Legislature had given full suffrage to women. [See Illinois and Alaska chapters.] Miss Lucy Burns gave a clear analysis of the situation in regard to the Federal Suffrage Amendment and the evening closed with one of Dr. Shaw's piquant addresses, which began: "I know the objections to woman suffrage but I have never met any one who pretended to know any reasons against it," and she closed with a flash of the humor for which she was noted:
By some objectors women are supposed to be unfit to vote because they are hysterical and emotional and of course men would not like to have emotion enter into a political campaign. They want to cut out all emotion and so they would like to cut us out. I had heard so much about our emotionalism that I went to the last Democratic national convention, held at Baltimore, to observe the calm repose of the male politicians. I saw some men take a picture of one gentleman whom they wanted elected and it was so big they had to walk sidewise as they carried it forward; they were followed by hundreds of other men screaming and yelling, shouting and singing the "Houn' Dawg"; then, when there was a lull, another set of men would start forward under another man's picture, not to be outdone by the "Houn' Dawg" melody, whooping and howling still louder. I saw men jump up on the seats and throw their hats in the air and shout: "What's the matter with Champ Clark?" Then, when those hats came down, other men would kick them back into the air, shouting at the top of their voices: "He's all right!!" Then I heard others howling for "Underwood, Underwood, first, last and all the time!!" No hysteria about it—just patriotic loyalty, splendid manly devotion to principle. And so they went on and on until 5 o'clock in the morning—the whole night long. I saw men jump up on their seats and jump down again and run around in a ring. I saw two men run towards another man to hug him both at once and they split his coat up the middle of his back and sent him spinning around like a wheel. All this with the perfect poise of the legal male mind in politics!
I have been to many women's conventions in my day but I never saw a woman leap up on a chair and take off her bonnet and toss it up in the air and shout: "What's the matter with" somebody. I never saw a woman knock another woman's bonnet off her head as she screamed: "She's all right!" I never heard a body of women whooping and yelling for five minutes when somebody's name was mentioned in the convention. But we are willing to admit that we are emotional. I have actually seen women stand up and wave their handkerchiefs. I have even seen them take hold of hands and sing, "Blest be the tie that binds." Nobody denies that women are excitable. Still, when I hear how emotional and how excitable we are, I cannot help seeing in my mind's eye the fine repose and dignity of this Baltimore and other political conventions I have attended!
One evening session was devoted to Women and Children and the Courts. Mrs. Joseph T. Bowen of Chicago presided and made a stirring plea for better conditions in the courts of the large cities. She told of the outrageous treatment of women and urged the need of women police, women judges and women jurors. "From the time of the arrest of a woman to the final disposition of her case," Mrs. Bowen said, "she is handicapped by being in charge of and surrounded by men, who cannot be expected to be as understanding and considerate as those of her own sex. The police stations in most of our cities are not fit for human beings." Judge of the Juvenile Court Julian Mack of Chicago described its methods and their results; and Justice Harry Olsen of the Court of Domestic Relations and the Court of Morals, gave an illuminating address on its functions and their results; Miss Maude Miner of New York spoke from experience of the Women's Night Court and the Work of a Probation Officer. The delegates were deeply moved and determined to investigate and improve the conditions in their own localities.
There had for some time been need of revising the constitution to meet new requirements and a revision committee had been appointed the preceding year with Mrs. Catt chairman, but as she had been in Europe her place had been taken by Miss Caroline Ruutz-Rees (Conn.), who was assisted by attorneys Helen Hoy Greeley and Jessie Ashley. The discussion was as long and earnest as if the fate of nations were involved but the principal changes adopted concerned representation, dues, assessments, methods of election and similar details. The report of Mrs. Katharine Dexter McCormick, treasurer, showed the total receipts of the year to be $42,723; disbursements, $42,542; balance on hand from preceding year, $2,874. A carefully prepared "budget" of $42,000 was presented to the convention and quickly oversubscribed. The legal adviser, Miss Mary Rutter Towle (D. C.), reported two lawsuits in progress to secure legacies that had been left the association, the usual fate that attended similar bequests. The literature had become so large a feature that it was decided to form a company to publish it. Mrs. Raymond Brown, president of the New York State Suffrage Association, proposed a corporation with a capital stock of $50,000, of which $26,000 should be held by the National American Association, the rest sold at $10 a share. The first $10,000 were at once subscribed and later the Woman Suffrage Publishing Company was organized with Mrs. Cyrus W. Field president.
The election took place under the new primary system and required two days for completion. The only change was the electing of Mrs. Desha Breckinridge second and Miss Ruutz-Rees third vice-presidents. The majorities for most of the officers were very large. The report of the delegates to the International Woman Suffrage Alliance in Budapest was made by Mrs. Anna O. Weeks (N. Y.). The demand for congressional documents, hearings, speeches, etc., had become so extensive that Mrs. Helen H. Gardener (D. C.) had been appointed to report in regard to it and she shed a good deal of light on the subject. She showed that some documents are free for distribution and some have to be paid for. Hearings are usually limited to a small number but the committee strains a point for those on woman suffrage and prints about 10,000, which may be had without charge. If a member is kind enough to "frank" them nothing else must be put in the envelope under penalty of a $300 fine. If more are wanted they must be ordered in 5,000 lots and a member can get a reduced rate, but, while he is always willing to pay the Government for printing his speech, those who want it for their own purposes should send the money for it. The speech of Representative Edward T. Taylor of Colorado in 1912 was cited as an example, of which the suffragists circulated 300,000 copies.