When the Congressional Committee was reorganized after the Nashville convention two departments were given into my charge, the congressional district organization work and the office catalogue of information concerning members of Congress. The Congressional plan, which had been launched but a year before, had been adopted in many of the States but not in all. My first step, therefore, was to urge by correspondence with the presidents that this machinery be established or completed in every State. On December 12 came the test as to how well this had been done. The Rules Committee of the House reported the Mondell amendment, which was to come to a vote January 12. I wrote or telegraphed at once to every congressional chairman or State president asking her to bring to bear all possible pressure upon the individual members of Congress from her State. Those States which had established this machinery were able at once to send the call to the respective district chairmen and so on down the line; the other States responded through their existing machinery and the result was that thousands of letters and telegrams poured into the offices of the Congressmen during the four weeks. Meantime our lobby was busy interviewing the members and the latest expressions obtained in each case were wired back to the States, whose chairmen responded again.
This interchange and cooperation were so effective that Congressmen themselves complimented our "team work." But the real proof of its value came after the vote was taken, when by checking with our office records of the individual Congressmen we found that many uncertain, noncommittal or almost unfriendly members' attitude had so changed that they voted yes on the amendment. Such a result could not fail to show, if proof had been necessary, that the greatest need as well as the greatest opportunity in national suffrage work for the future lay in furthering to the last degree of completeness and efficiency the organization of every State by congressional districts....
At a distance from Washington it is difficult to know and easy to lose sight of what a Representative does or stands for, so I prepared special reports to the State congressional chairmen whenever opportunity occurred. The first, and a most interesting one, came when the vote was taken in the House on the National Prohibition Amendment Dec. 22, 1914. This was just three weeks before the vote on our own amendment and our catalogue showed a large number of Congressmen who opposed us on the ground of State's rights. The National Prohibition Amendment is obviously as direct an assumption by the Federal Government of rights now reposing in the States as could possibly be devised. I, therefore, checked off the names of the State's rights Congressmen who voted for it but probably would not vote for national suffrage, and sent the list to our respective State chairmen, urging that they call these Representatives' attention to this inconsistency. It has been reported to me that this argument proved effective with several of them and it is a fact that after the suffrage vote was taken a number of the names on our first list had to be removed because those men had voted "aye" on suffrage. Seventy-two, however, in the final count, voted for the National Prohibition Amendment but against ours....
In June I devised a special congressional district campaign which would reach the members of Congress before they left their homes to go to Washington. This was intended to impress them with the strength of the suffrage sentiment in their districts and thus deprive them of a favorite excuse for not voting for our amendment. The plan called for congressional district meetings all over the country on or about November 16 in every district where the Representative was not already pledged to the Federal Amendment. The call was sent to every congressional district chairman and it requested that every local suffrage league send as many delegates as possible to the meeting which would be held in the city where the Senator or Representative lived. It was urged that they be invited to attend the meetings and to speak and that resolutions be adopted asking them to vote for the amendment. It was a part of the plan to send these resolutions also to the State Central Committees of the Republican and Democratic parties, asking for suffrage planks on the State and national platforms.... We received most cordial and widespread cooperation in this work. I believe we can say that practically every Senator and Representative returned to Washington this session with the knowledge that behind him at home is an organized demand for his favorable vote on the Federal Amendment.
The usual pleasant social features of these conventions had been eliminated and the only relaxation for the delegates was one large evening reception in the New Willard Hotel. The National College Equal Suffrage League held its annual luncheon on the 18th at the New Ebbitt Hotel, Dr. M. Carey Thomas, president of Bryn Mawr College, presiding. The guests were 225 women graduates of various colleges and the topic of all the speeches was, "How to advance women suffrage by making friends instead of enemies." The speakers included Dr. Shaw, Mrs. Charles L. Tiffany, Mrs. Raymond Brown, Mrs. Medill McCormick, Miss Florence Stiles, Mrs. Frank M. Roessing, Miss Hannah J. Patterson, Mrs. Elizabeth Puffer Howes and Mrs. Laura Puffer Morgan.
The convention sent a telegram of sympathy in her illness to Miss Jane Addams. A special vote of thanks was tendered to Senators Charles S. Thomas and John F. Shafroth and to Representative Edward T. Taylor, all of Colorado, and to Representative Frank W. Mondell of Wyoming for the very great assistance they had given to the Congressional Committee. A cordial invitation came from the Chicago suffrage headquarters for the delegates to accept its hospitality during the National Republican Convention in June, 1916. Invitations for the next convention were received from St. Louis, Little Rock and Atlantic City.
Mrs. Medill McCormick, chairman of the Congressional Committee, introduced Mrs. Antoinette Funk, its vice chairman, who told of the strong and successful effort made to have the Committee on Rules ignore the adverse action of the Democratic caucus and send the resolution to the Lower House for action after the Judiciary Committee had reported it without recommendation. The date finally set for the debate in the House was Jan. 12, 1915. Her report was in part as follows:
From the moment the resolution was reported by the Judiciary Committee the energies of the Congressional Committee were directed toward the end of bringing out as large a favorable vote as was humanly possible and all the members of the committee then resident in Washington undertook some portion of the task. The leaders of both sides of the House, Mr. Mondell for the Republicans and Mr. Taylor for the Democrats, gave us their heartiest support. Through them and through the courtesy of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Champ Clark, we learned what members would be recognized for speeches, and each man who had asked for time or who had been asked to speak because of his locality or for other reasons was interviewed. Our cooperation in the matter of gathering up suffrage data and material was offered and freely accepted. All suffrage literature known to us was brought in large quantities into our office and assorted into sets bearing upon the situation of the different Congressmen according to their locality, political faith, etc. Every man known to be favorable to us was urged to be in his seat on January 12 and those of our friends who, we learned, would be unavoidably kept away from Washington were written and telegraphed to arrange for favorable pairs.
Some time before the vote was taken the Congressional Committee reported to the National Board that our minimum vote would be 168. In fact, 174 favorable votes were cast and 11 favorable pairs were registered. The negative votes were 204....
The favorable speeches of the Congressmen were put in form for the campaign States and over a million and a half were circulated. The report continued: