STATEMENT BY MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT AT SENATE HEARING IN 1910
Although the Constitution of the United States in section 2 of Article I seems to have relegated authority over the extension of the suffrage to the various States, yet, curiously, few men in the United States possess the suffrage because they or the class to which they belong have secured their right to it by State action. The first voters were those who possessed the right under the original charters granted by the mother country and as the restrictions were many, including religious tests in most of the colonies and property qualifications in all, the number of actual voters was exceedingly small. When it became necessary at the close of the Revolution to form a federation for the "common defense" and the promotion of the "general welfare," it was obvious that citizenship must be made national. To do this it became clearly necessary that religious tests must be abandoned, since Catholic Maryland, Quaker Pennsylvania and Congregational Massachusetts could be united under a common citizenship by no other method. The elimination of the religious test enfranchised a large number of men and this without a struggle or any movement in their behalf.
In 1790 the first naturalization law was passed by Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation citizenship had belonged to the States but since it was apparent that it must now be national, a compromise was made between the old idea of State's rights and the new idea of Federal union. Each of the original States had its representatives in the convention which drafted the Federal Constitution and by common consent it was there planned that citizenship should carry with it the right to vote, although this was to be put into the State constitutions and not into the National. These delegates, influencing their own States in the forming of their constitutions, easily brought this about and without any movement on the part of those who were to be naturalized. This common understanding in the National Constitutional Convention and the Naturalization Act of Congress in 1790 certainly enfranchised somewhere between three-fourths and four-fifths of all men in the United States at this time.
The population of the colonies at the time of the Revolution was two and a half millions and even though all men had been voters the number could not have been more than seven or eight hundred thousand. By the census of 1900 there were 21,000,000 men of voting age in the United States. The Act, therefore, of the U. S. Government virtually enfranchised millions upon millions of men. Generations then unborn have come into the right of the suffrage in this country under that Act and men of every nationality have availed themselves of its privileges to become voting citizens. Although, technically speaking, enfranchisement of the foreign-born was extended by the States, yet in reality it is obvious that the real granting of this privilege came from Congress itself. The thirteen original States retained their property qualifications after the formation of the Union and these were removed by State amendments. This extension of the suffrage was made in most cases many years ago, when the electorate was very small in numbers.
The history of the enfranchisement of the negro is well known. States attempted it by amending their constitutions but in no case was this accomplished. Congress undertook to secure it by national amendment and although this was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the State Legislatures yet it must be remembered that all the southern States were virtually coerced into giving their consent.... The Indians were enfranchised by Acts of Congress.
The evolution of man suffrage in the United States shows that but one class received their votes by direct State action—the nonproperty holders. They found political parties and statesmen to advocate their cause and their enfranchisement was made easy by State constitutional action.
In the 120 years of our national life no class of men have been forced to organize a movement in behalf of their enfranchisement; they have offered no petition or plea or even given sign that the extension of suffrage to them would be acceptable. Yet American women, who have conducted a persistent, intelligent movement for a half-century, which has grown stronger and stronger with the years, appealing for their own enfranchisement and supported now by a petition of 400,000 citizens of the United States are told that it is unnecessary to consider their plea since all women do not want to vote!
Gentlemen, is it not manifestly unfair to demand of women a test which has never been made in the case of men in this or any other country? Is it not true that the attitude of the Government toward an unenfranchised class of men has ever been that the vote is a privilege to be extended and it is optional with the citizen whether or not he shall use it? If any proof is needed it can be found in the fact that the U. S. Government has no record whatever of the number who have been naturalized in this country. It has no record of the number of Indians who have accepted its offer of the vote as a reward for taking up land in severalty. Manifestly the Government, as represented by Congress and the State Legislatures, considers it entirely unnecessary to know whether men who have had the suffrage "thrust upon them" use it or not, but imperative that women must not only demand it in very large numbers but give guaranty that they will use it, before its extension shall be made to them.
Is it not likewise unfair to compel women to seek their enfranchisement by methods infinitely more difficult than those by means of which any man in this country has secured his right to a vote? Ordinary fair play should compel every believer in democracy and individual liberty, no matter what are his views on woman suffrage, to grant to women the easiest process of enfranchisement and that is the submission of a Federal Amendment.