With the women of eleven States now eligible to vote for all candidates at the general election of 1916 and the large number in Illinois possessing the Presidential franchise woman suffrage had become a leading issue. Most of the House Judiciary Committee of twenty-one members, including the chairman, Edwin Y. Webb of North Carolina, an immovable opponent, were present at the hearing on December 16 and they faced sixteen speakers for the Federal Amendment and twelve opposed. Three hours were granted to the former, divided between the National American Association and the Congressional Union, and two hours to the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. Dr. Shaw opened the hearing by referring to the thirty-seven years that had seen the leaders of her association pleading with Congress for favorable action on this amendment and introduced Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, comprising twenty-six nations.

Mrs. Catt said in part:

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I fear that the hearings before this Judiciary Committee have become in the eyes and understanding of many of the members a rather perfunctory affair which you have to endure. May I remind you that since the last hearing something new has happened in the United States and that is that more than a million men have voted for woman suffrage in four of the most conservative States of the East? I consider that that big vote presents to this committee a mandate for action which was never presented before. There are those, doubtless, who will say that this is a question of State rights. I have been studying Congressmen for a good many years and I have discovered that when a man believes in woman suffrage it is a national question and when he does not believe in it he says it is a question for the States....

Mrs. Catt told of the prominent educator who was sent from Belgium to investigate the working of woman suffrage in the United States and after he had made a visit to the States where it existed he summed up the result by saying: "I am convinced in favor in my mind but my heart is still opposed." "There are members of this committee," she said, "who are governed by their hearts instead of their heads," and she continued:

Gentlemen, this movement has grown bigger and stronger as the years have passed by until today millions of women are asking in all the States for the vote. The president of Cornell University, Dr. Schurman, said that his reason for now aggressively advocating woman suffrage was because he had discovered in studying history that it was never good for a government to have a restless and dissatisfied class; he had made up his mind that the women of the nation did think that they had a grievance, whether they had or not, and he believed that a government was stronger and safer when grievances were relieved.

A few days before the election in order to show that the women wanted to vote there was a parade in New York City and 20,000 marched up Fifth Avenue, among them a great number of public school teachers of the city, 12,000 of whom had contributed to our campaign funds. These women deal with the most difficult problems; they are teaching all that the new-coming people know of citizenship and they were asking their own share in that citizenship. A man whose name is known to every one of you was sitting at the window of a clubhouse watching the women pass hour after hour until at last this great group of teachers, sixteen abreast, marched by with their banners. He looked out upon them and do you think he said, "I am convinced that the women of New York do want to vote and I will help them?" That is what an honorable American citizen, an open-minded man, would have said. Instead he exclaimed: "My God! I never realized what a menace the woman suffrage movement is to this country; we have got to do something next Tuesday to keep the women from getting the vote."

There is not a man on this committee or in this House who can produce a single argument against woman suffrage that will hold water, and the thing that is rousing the women of this land continually and making them realize that our Government visits upon us a daily injustice is that the doors of our ports are left wide open and the men of all the nations on earth are permitted to enter and receive the franchise. In New York City women must ask for it in twenty-four languages....

Walter M. Chandler of New York City, a member of the committee, asked Mrs. Catt if she thought a Representative should vote against the mandate of his district, which in his case had given a majority of 2,000 against a State amendment in November, although he himself had spoken and voted for it. A spirited dialogue followed which filled several pages of the printed report, Mrs. Catt insisting that he should stand by the broad principle of justice and Mr. Chandler equally insistent that he must represent his constituents. As Dr. Shaw rose to return to the convention Mr. Carlin of Virginia said: "Dr. Shaw, would you mind explaining to this committee the essential difference between this organization known as the National Woman Suffrage Association and the Congressional Union? There is a great deal of confusion among the members of the committee as to just what is the difference between them," and she answered:

It is, perhaps, like two different political parties, which believe in different procedure. The National Woman Suffrage Association has two fundamental ideas—to secure the suffrage through State and national constitutions—and we appeal both to Congress and to the States. The Congressional Union, as I understand it, appeals only to the Congress. Another essential difference is that the policy of the Union is to hold the party in power responsible for the acts of Congress, whether they are acts of that party by itself or of the whole Congress. They follow a partisan method of attacking the political party in power, whether the members of it are friendly to the woman-suffrage movement or not. For instance, Senator Thomas of Colorado, Senator Chamberlain of Oregon and other Senators and Representatives who have always been favorable to our movement and have aided us all the way along, have been attacked by this Union not because of their personal attitude toward our question but because of the attitude of their party. The National Suffrage Association pursues a non-partisan method, attacking no political party. If we could defeat a member of any political party who persistently opposed our measure we would do it, whether in the Republican or the Democratic or any other, but would never hold any party responsible for the acts of its individual members.