The History of Woman Suffrage, Volume V

by Unknown

In the administration of Jefferson the Federal Government began the construction of the great national road without any express authority from the Constitution and notwithstanding the fact that the construction of highways was admittedly a State matter.... On August 24, 1912, the Congress of the United States, then controlled by the Democratic party, voted $5,000,000 for the construction of experimental and rural-delivery routes and to aid the States in highway construction. From high in the councils of that party we now have the advocacy of national ownership of railways, telegraph and telephone lines.

In the early days of the republic the Democratic party protested even in armed insurrection in Pennsylvania against the inquisitorial excise tax, which, to use the language of that day, "penetrated a sphere of taxation reserved to the State." Today this party has placed upon the statute books the most inquisitorial tax ever laid in the history of our country by the act of April 9, 1912—a tax on white phosphorus matches, not for the purpose of raising revenues, for which the taxing power is conferred, but admittedly for the purpose of destroying an industry which it could not touch otherwise. The match industry was found to be injurious to a few hundred workingmen, women and children. The Democratic party wisely and justly cast to the four winds all talk about the rights of States, made the match business a national affair and destroyed its dangerous features. Men and women all over the country rose up and pronounced it a noble achievement. Republicans joined with the Democrats in claiming the honor of that great humane service.

I have not yet finished with this tattered shibboleth. The State had the right to nullify Federal law in 1798, so Jefferson taught and Kentucky practiced. Half a century elapsed; the State of Wisconsin, rock-ribbed Republican, nullified the fugitive slave law and in its pronunciamento of nullification quoted the very words which Jefferson used in 1798. A Democratic Supreme Court at Washington, presided over by Chief Justice Taney, the arch apostle of State rights, answered Wisconsin in the very language of the Federalists of 1798, whom Jefferson despised and condemned: "The Constitution and laws of the United States are supreme, and the Supreme Court is the only and final arbiter of disputes between the State and National Governments."

A few more years elapsed. South Carolina declared the right of the State to nullify and Wisconsin answered on the field of battle: "The Constitution and laws of the National Government are supreme, so help us God!" ... At the close of that ever to be regretted war the nation wrote into the Constitution the 14th and 15th Amendments, their fundamental principle that the suffrage is a national matter. Those amendments were intended to establish forever adult male suffrage....

Mrs. Beard then presented for the record a thorough synopsis of the proceedings in relation to the franchise of the convention that framed the U. S. Constitution, which showed, she declared, that it would have made a national suffrage qualification if the members could have agreed on one. "In all the great federations of the world," she said, "Germany, Canada, Australia, suffrage is regarded as a national question," and continued: "If respect for the great and wise who have viewed suffrage as a national matter did not compel us so to regard it, the plain dictates of common sense would do so. We are all ruled by the laws made by Congress, from Maine to California; we must all obey them equally whether we like them or not. We are taxed under them; we travel according to rules laid down by the Interstate Commerce Commission under the Interstate Commerce law; the remaining national resources are to be conserved by Congress; whether we have peace or war depends upon Congress. Is it of no concern who compose Congress, who vote for members of Congress and for the President?"

It was shown by Mrs. Beard how closely national and State policies were interwoven; that the submission of this amendment would take it to the State Legislatures for a final decision; how with woman suffrage in nine States there was a much greater demand for it than there was for the one changing the method of electing U. S. Senators; how the plank in the national platform adopted in Baltimore exempting American ships in coastwise trade from Panama canal tolls was now before the Democrats in Congress for repudiation; how another plank demanded State action on presidential primaries and President Wilson called for a national law. Now a Democratic Congress refused to submit a national suffrage amendment because the platform did not ask for it! She concluded: "No, gentlemen, you can not answer us by shaking in our faces that tatterdemalion of a State's rights scarecrow.... It is a travesty upon our reasoning faculties to suppose that we can not put two and two together. It is underestimating our strength and our financial resources to suppose that we can not place these plain facts in the hands of 15,000,000 voters, including over 3,000,000 women. To take away from the States the right to determine how Presidential electors shall be chosen is upholding the Constitution and the previous rights of the States; but to submit to the States an amendment permitting them to decide for themselves whether they want woman suffrage for the nation is a violent usurpation of State's rights! We can not follow your logic."

Dr. Cora Smith King of Seattle, who had so large a part in obtaining equal suffrage in Washington, said:

I am a voter like yourselves; I am eligible to become a member of Congress, like any one of you. However, I do not stand before you as one voter only but to remind you that there are nearly 4,000,000 women voters in the United States today. I represent an organization called the National Council of Women Voters, organized in every one of the States where women vote on equal terms with men. These States, as you know, are Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona. There are three objects of the Council: One is to educate ourselves in the exercise of our citizenship; the second is to aid in our own States where we vote in putting upon the statute books laws beneficial to men and women, children and the home; and our third object is the one which brings me here this morning—to aid in the further extension of suffrage to women.

The members of your committee from the latest equal suffrage States will bear me out in saying that there are thousands of women voters who have not yet made their party alignment. I desire to call attention to these many thousands who have only recently won the battle which they have fought so earnestly—as I have done from the time that I attained my majority and have not yet forgotten what it cost—and who have their ears attuned to the plea of their sisters in the other States. I remind you, gentlemen, that they may not prove unheeding when requested to vote for the men who are favorable to the further extension of suffrage. I trust that this present committee will not justify the charge of being a graveyard for many suffrage bills. I warn you that ghosts may walk.

Mrs. William Kent, wife of Representative Kent of California, spoke briefly, telling how the suffrage societies there became civic leagues after the vote was won and stood solidly back of seventeen bills relating to the welfare of the State and the home and the influence they were able to exert because of having the franchise. She urged the committee to submit the amendment and spare women the further drudgery of State campaigns and assured them that the women would not stop until the last one was enfranchised. Representative Joseph R. Knowland of California gave earnest testimony in favor of the practical working of woman suffrage in that State saying: "For years we heard the same arguments against equal rights for women as we hear today but we have tried it and many who were most bitterly opposed are now glad that California has given the franchise to women. It has proved an unqualified success. What I desire to impress upon this committee is that even though you may oppose the amendment it is your duty to report it in order that every member of the House may have an opportunity to register his vote for or against it."