“women are free at last in all the land”

chant royal

waken, o woman, to the trumpet sound

greeting our day of long sought liberty;

gone are the ages that have held us bound

beneath a master, now we stand as he,

free for world-service unto all mankind,

free of the dragging chains that used to bind,

the sordid labor, the unnoticed woe,

the helpless shame, the unresisted blow,

submission to our owner’s least command—

no longer pets or slaves are we, for lo!

women are free at last in all the land.

long was the stony road our feet have found

from that dark past to the new world we see,

each step with heavy hindrance hemmed around,

each door to freedom closed with bolt and key;

our feet with old tradition all entwined,

untrained, uneducated, uncombined,

we had to fight old faiths of long ago,

and in our households find our dearest foe,

against the world’s whole weight we had to stand

till came the day it could no more say no—

women are free at last in all the land.

around us prejudice, emotion-drowned,

rose like a flood and would not let us free;

women themselves, soft-bred and silken gowned,

historic shame have won by their mad plea

to keep their own subjection; with them lined

all evil forces of the world we find,

no crime so brazen and no vice so low

but fought us, with inertia blind and slow,

and ignorance beneath its darkling brand,

these we strove and still must strive, although

women are free at last in all the land.

419the serving squaw, the peasant, toil-embrowned,

the household drudge, no honor and no fee—

for these we now see women world-renowned,

in art and science, work of all degree.

she whom world progress had left far behind

now has the secret of full life divined,—

her largest service gladly to bestow;

great is the gain since ages far below,

in honored labor, of head and hand;

now may her power and genius clearly show

women are free at last in all the land.

long years of effort to her praise redound,

to such high courage all may bend the knee,

beside her brother, with full freedom crowned,

mother and wife and citizen is she,

queen of her soul and body, heart and mind,

strong for the noble service god designed;

see now the marching millions, row on row,

with steady eyes and faces all aglow,

they come! they come! a glad triumphant band,—

roses and laurels in their pathway strow—

women are free at last in all the land!

envoi

sisters! we now must change the world we know

to one great garden where the child may grow.

new freedom means new duty, broad and grand.

to make a better world and hold it so

women are free at last in all the land.

charlotte perkins gilman,

the suffragist, september, 1920.

the suffrage amendment had now passed both the house of representatives and the senate. one step was necessary before it became a part of the constitution of the united states—ratification by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states in the union—by thirty-six states out of forty-eight. no time limit was set by congress on ratification, but naturally suffragists wanted it to come as soon as possible. 420some people believed it would take twenty years. they did not reckon with alice paul however.

as soon as congress passed the suffrage amendment, the whole situation—as far as suffrage was concerned—changed. now the president, the leaders in the administration, the leaders in the great political parties became potential allies.

in four states—wisconsin, illinois, pennsylvania, massachusetts—the legislatures were in regular session. in three states—texas, ohio, michigan—called on matters not pertaining to suffrage, the legislatures were in special session. the first undertaking of the woman’s party was to get the convening legislatures to ratify and the remaining states to call special sessions.

a race as to who should be the first to ratify, set in between wisconsin, michigan, and illinois. all three ratified on june 10. but illinois had to re-ratify later on june 17 because of an error in printing the amendment on its first ratification on june 10. as between the other two, wisconsin won.

the story of wisconsin’s part in the race is interesting and humorous. d. g. james, the father of ada james, former chairman of the wisconsin branch of the woman’s party, was spending the day in madison when the legislature ratified. his daughter was, of course, exceedingly desirous that wisconsin should achieve the honor of the first ratification, and he was equally desirous of aiding her. he assisted her in every way to avoid official delays and in getting the action of the legislature properly certified. he commandeered his daughter’s traveling bag, made a few swift purchases of the necessities of traveling, and caught the first train to washington. he procured a signed statement that wisconsin’s ratification was the first to be received from the department of state, on june 13. he brought his trophy in triumph to headquarters and told his story to the newspaper men while the statement was being photographed.

that statement runs as follows:

421department of state

washington.

june 13, 1919.

by direction of the acting secretary of state, i hereby acknowledge the receipt of a certified copy of the joint resolution of the legislature of the state of wisconsin, ratifying the proposed amendment to the constitution of the united states extending the right of suffrage to women, which was delivered by special messenger, d. g. james, on june 13, 1919, and is the first ratification of the amendment which has been received.

j. a. towner,

chief of bureau.

michigan, almost neck and neck in the race with wisconsin, ratified on june 10. kansas, ohio, and new york ratified on june 16. kansas was the first state to call its legislature in special session to ratify the suffrage amendment, the first also in which the legislators paid their own expenses to attend the special session. illinois, held up by that mistake in printing, ratified on june 17.

pennsylvania, the first non-suffrage state, ratified on june 24, but not without a struggle. the session of the legislature was drawing to a close and it was difficult to get the measure introduced. the national woman’s party made a strenuous campaign. mrs. lawrence lewis, chairman of the pennsylvania ratification committee, enlisted the aid of governor sproul and in a conference with senator penrose, who had been one of the strongest opponents to the suffrage amendment in the united states senate, persuaded him to give his support to ratification. mary ingham, the state chairman, brought all the woman’s party forces in the state to bear upon the situation. the scene in the senate when the vote was taken was highly colorful. the floor was a waving mass of purple, white, and gold. the tri-color badges of the national woman’s party appeared everywhere on the floor and among the audience. there was such demand for the woman’s party colors that at the last moment the stock had to be replenished. after the final victory in the 422house, a parade of purple, white, and gold blazed its way through harrisburg.

massachusetts followed close on pennsylvania, ratifying on june 25. agnes morey, the state chairman of the national woman’s party, assisted by members of the state branch, and by betty gram, national organizer, made the intensive drive on the legislature, which resulted in their bringing the bay state into camp. here, senator lodge, another hitherto unchangeable opponent to the suffrage amendment in the united states senate, did not oppose the measure when it came up before the massachusetts legislature, although he did not give the support which penrose of pennsylvania gave.

texas, the first democratic “one-party” state to do so, ratified by special session on june 28. iowa, after an appeal for a special session from senator cummins to governor harding—this was done at the instance of the woman’s party—ratified on july 2; missouri ratified by special session on july 3.

in the meantime the legislature of alabama, which only convenes once in four years, met and although suffragists had not wanted this session and had very little hope of success, they conducted a campaign for ratification. as it was the first democratic state in which there was difficulty, an appeal was made to the president. he despatched the following telegrams:

white house,

july 12, 1919.

hon. thomas e. kilby, governor,

montgomery, alabama.

i hope you will pardon me if i express my very earnest hope that the suffrage amendment to the constitution of the united states may be ratified by the great state of alabama.

it would constitute a very happy augury for the future and add greatly to the strength of the movement which, in my judgment, is based upon the highest considerations, both of justice and experience.

woodrow wilson.

423white house

july 14, 1919.

hon. h. p. merritt,

speaker of house of representatives,

montgomery, alabama.

i hope that you will not think that i am taking an unwarranted liberty in saying that i earnestly hope, as do all friends of the great liberal movement which it represents, that the legislature of alabama will ratify the suffrage amendment to the constitution of the united states. it would give added hope and courage to the friends of justice and enlightened policy everywhere and would constitute the best possible augury for future liberal policy of every sort.

woodrow wilson.

alabama was the first state in which ratification was defeated.

by this time, the legislature in georgia was convening. suffragists had no more hope of ratification here than in alabama. nevertheless the campaign was made. they appealed to the national democratic leaders for help and the president despatched the following telegram:

white house,

july 14, 1919.

governor hugh m. dorsey,

state capitol,

atlanta, georgia.

i am profoundly interested in the passage of the suffrage amendment to the constitution, and will very much value your advice as to the present status of the matter in the georgia legislature. i would like very much to be of help, for i believe it to be absolutely essential to the political future of the country that the amendment be passed. it is absolutely essential to the future of the democratic party that it take a leading part in this great reform.

woodrow wilson.

georgia defeated ratification july 24, although the national democratic leaders had aided in the entire campaign.

arkansas ratified on july 20; montana, july 20; nebraska on august 2, all by special session.

424then came a lull in the ratification race. by august, only two states west of the mississippi, had ratified and to the great surprise—and the intense disappointment—of suffragists, the west continued to maintain this lethargy.

in the meantime, there came a special session for good roads in virginia, another democratic state. since the session was meeting, the suffragists had no alternative but to make the fight. in virginia, they relied again on the democratic national leaders to overcome the opposition of the local democratic leaders. as in the case of alabama and georgia, although the national leaders did much, they did not do enough. the president, however, despatched the following letter:

august 22, 1919.

president of the senate,

richmond, virginia.

may i not take the liberty of expressing my profound interest in the action which the legislature of my native state is to take in the matter of the suffrage amendment to the united states constitution. it seems to me of profound importance to our country that this amendment should be adopted and i venture to urge the adoption on the legislature. with utmost respect and with the greatest earnestness,

woodrow wilson.

virginia did not ratify.

during all this period campaigns for special sessions continued. typical of these is the following account by julia emory, national organizer, in the july suffragist:

“good-by, good luck, and don’t come back until maryland ratifies!” this from the group of national headquarters when i waved farewell and started over the hills and far away toward a special session in maryland. over the hills to baltimore, and then early the next morning, very, very early, the big bay boat splashed down the chesapeake to cambridge where governor harrington was spending the week-end.

“it’s good of you to come,” the governor greeted me. “not good of me, but necessary, governor, to let you know how much 425women need a special session in maryland, now. not just the 15,000 maryland women of our organization who have asked me to come to you, but all the women in the united states.” “ah!” said he. “you ladies are too impatient. we will have a regular session in january, why can’t you wait till then?” “because,” i answered, “there is no need of prolonging the struggle. we have the necessary thirty-six states in view. we want the special session so that we can vote for the next governor of maryland at the election this november, and for members of our legislature at the same election.” “but the question of expense,” he suggested. “that is easily eliminated,” i said. “take kansas, for example, where the legislators waived all pay and mileage in order to push forward ratification. surely our maryland men will do the same. and, anyhow, two days at the outside would see the thing through. think of the taxes women have paid for so many years. think of the war for democracy, think of the part women gave in human sacrifice, service and money, and then tell me if anybody would say that a special session called for the purpose of giving them a voice in their government would take too much out of the state treasury.” “that’s true,” said the governor, “but special sessions are unpopular, and suppose the resolution should fail——” “oh!” i said with a beaming smile of relief, “if what you want is a convincing poll, i’ll give you that,” thinking of the poll which, though still not yet completed, already showed a majority pledged in both houses. “next tuesday,” said he. “now,” said i. it was then friday. but the governor said tuesday, and told me that in the meantime he was going to “feel around” for sentiment. and so did i.

first i went to a state senator. “why the special session?” he wanted to know. and when he found the thirty-six states were in view, he sat up. “the thing is upon us,” he said. we went over the situation from the political point of view from beginning to end. he was a democrat. “and,” said he in a low voice, “if i had to bet on the fall elections, i’d—well, all i have to say is, if the democrats want to get any credit, it’ll have to be by special session.”

“will you say that to the governor?” i asked.

“i will, tonight,” he said, “and as for the question of expense, i for one, will waive my pay.” just then the train whistled. “you can’t make it,” said the senator. “we are some distance from the station.” “i must,” i said. “i have to see another man.”

the senator laughed and called to a man in an automobile and 426away i whisked and the conductor helped me to hop on the train as it moved off.

the man at the other end was in chicago. and the next train was due in six hours. then on to a little town where i sat on a pile of baggage and waited until the republican delegate arrived. “i hope,” he said, “that the republicans will take the initiative and ask for a special session. yes, you bet, i’ll waive my pay.”

then a democrat, who said he would fight a special session to a finish. “knowing what it will mean to your party if you do?” i asked. we went into it from the political viewpoint. then he saw the end in sight. we carefully went over the thirty-six states. he rubbed his head and looked at the opposite wall (or it may have been the state of maryland he was gazing at so intently). “you know,” he said finally, “i am an anti-suffragist at heart, but at the same time i am no fool. the thing is here, and the point is, what is the best thing to do about it. i will not urge a special session, but i will not fight it.”

then on tuesday, mrs. donald hooker, our maryland chairman, went over the poll with the governor. man by man, they considered the delegates and senators. yes, this one was sure, that one was practically sure but wasn’t pledged and so we wouldn’t count him yet, another was hopeful, another was hopeless, and the then uncompleted poll stood fifty-nine to thirty-eight in the house and thirteen to eleven in the senate. we looked expectantly at the governor. “i need more time to consider,” was what he said.

“in the meantime,” said mrs. hooker to me as we went out, “we will complete the poll as fast as possible. a big majority will surely convince him that it must go through.”

so off to southern maryland and the counties around washington. one legislator i found in washington in a big, cool office, dressed in a palm beach suit and on the point of departing for a vacation. i looked at him and thought of canoes and bathing suits which had been shoved aside for me till after the special session. “i hope you will have a good time,” i told him. “mine will come after you have voted ‘yes.’” he smiled happily and his reply made me smile happily too.

one man was in his wheat field. ‘way into the country we went by automobile where no trains ran and no electric cars penetrated. we reached the town and inquired at the hardware store for our legislator: “mr. f——? oh, he don’t live here, he just has his mail sent here, he lives ’bout fo’teen mile round yonder.” “fo’teen mile round yonder,” we finally found his 427home. “well, you see it’s this way,” explained his wife. “he might’ve been home, but mr. so-and-so is thrashing wheat and my husband went over to help him get it in before the storm.” we noticed clouds in the sky. we went on to the so-and-sos’ farm. at the farmhouse, we all alighted. my companions immediately made for the chicken yard where they made friends with mrs. so-and-so and helped her to feed the chickens. afterward, they told us of the strong suffrage speech the farmer’s wife had made to them, who being the mother of eight children—six girls and two boys—had come to the conclusion that nobody needed suffrage more than the farmer’s wife. two of the little girls took me out to the field, up a dusty white road we walked, climbed rail fences and—oh! how good! picked a few blackberries—and came at last to the thrashing field. “no,” said my man, “i can’t see that suffrage is right, and i can’t therefore vote for it.” “did you think the war was right?” i asked. “oh! of course.” “and why did we go to war?” i asked. “to get democracy,” he answered. “exactly,” i said. “and president wilson said that democracy was ‘the right of all those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.’” “now look here, missie,” said my friend, “i believe women are superior beings to men, and if they were to vote, they’d have to be equals. now look at this hay stack. you could no more pitch hay than——” “will you lend me your fork?” i asked. i stuck in the form, gave it the peculiar little twist, then the little flop, squared my shoulder and up it went on the wagon. three times. “well, i’ll be jiggered,” laughed the legislator, “labor is scarce and now i’ll know where to look for help when i need it!” “yes,” said i. “and we have come to you for help. we need your vote.”

on to the next, we climbed into the machine and sped away.

and so it runs. sometimes, we strike an obstinate anti who will not even listen to what we have to say, even though i have traveled weary miles in trains and on foot to find him. sometimes we have to put up at a funny little village hotel because an inconsiderate legislator has gone out of town for a day. sometimes they are cordial, and offer all sorts of help. sometimes the road lies through beautiful country, occasionally in hot, stuffy little towns. at fastest, it is slow work. why do legislators live so far apart and in such inaccessible places? and generally so very far from anything to eat! some evenings as it begins to grow dark, i am keenly aware that i have had nothing to eat since breakfast. but that is part of the game, and after all what does it matter when i can write to headquarters before 428i fall into bed, “we can add the following names of legislators to the list of pledged, and all of them have offered to waive their pay.” so far only one has refused to waive pay.

so, with a big majority in both houses pledged to vote for the measure, there remains nothing but the calling of the special session. this, it is up to governor harrington to do at once.

and this, according to the following answer to attorney general palmer’s letter, he still refuses to do. yet the governor must surely yet see the light, as he knows that there is no question of defeat if a special session is called to ratify.

the poll which has been so carefully and accurately drawn up demonstrates that fact most convincingly, and we are going to keep right on working until governor harrington sees it that way!

maryland defeated ratification later.

owing to the fact that most of the governors who must call special sessions were republicans, the national woman’s party made a drive on the national republican leaders to get them to act upon these governors. on august 14, abby scott baker went to the governors’ conference at salt lake city where, assisted by louise garnett, state chairman of the woman’s party in utah, she succeeded in getting governors whose legislatures had already ratified to organize an informal committee to work upon those whose legislatures had not ratified. some of these governors of these backward states—or rather some of the backward governors of these states—made tentative promises in regard to special sessions, but these promises were so vague that mrs. baker started, at the close of the governors’ conference, to california. we shall hear about her work there later.

minnesota ratified on september 8; new hampshire on september 10, both in special session. utah—but there is a story about utah.

utah was backward. alice paul interested isaac russell, a newspaper man, and a native of utah, in the situation. he prevailed upon senator smoot, republican, to write a letter to alice paul saying that he was disappointed that governor bamberger, democrat, was not calling a special session. 429alice paul gave this letter to the press, and of course, the republican papers of utah carried it. alice paul waited a while and then she sent anita pollitzer to see the democratic congressmen from utah, and to put it clearly to them that the responsibility for the delay was on their party. as a result of miss pollitzer’s representations, congressman welling, a democrat and a friend of governor bamberger, wrote a strong telegram to him in which he urged him to set the date of a special session at once. early the next morning, congressman welling telephoned headquarters that the telegram had brought results and read a message from governor bamberger announcing the date on which he would call that special session. utah ratified on september 30.

in the meantime, we must go back to abby scott baker, whom we left on her way to california. she found that an enormous amount of work had been done by genevieve allen, the state chairman for california, and by the members of her organization, assisted by vivian pierce, a national organizer. governor stevens, however, seemed immovable on the subject of a special session. but with additional assistance from mrs. william kent, one of its national officers, the woman’s party inaugurated a vigorous newspaper campaign. governor stevens found himself inundated by an avalanche of telegrams, letters, petitions, resolutions; and finally of entreaties of the men who surrounded him. governor stevens is a republican, and the democratic women began to organize for ratification. senator phelan, democrat, gave them his assistance. national leaders of both parties brought pressure to bear. it was impossible to resist this current. governor stevens issued a call for a special session for november 1, and on that date california ratified.

the woman’s party refers to maine as the first close call. this story is very interesting. maine called a special session, but maine was, so to speak, on the fence in regard to suffrage, as, when the national woman’s party approached 430the state on the subject of ratification, a referendum on presidential suffrage was pending. so important was the situation there that alice paul joined mrs. lawrence lewis and mrs. robert treat whitehouse, the state chairman, who were working hard. in maine, too, the antis were troublesome. they managed to introduce a resolution in the legislature proposing postponement on the subject of ratification until after the referendum. the president and secretary of the state federation of labor sent an official appeal to the legislature to vote for this resolution. immediately the woman’s party in washington obtained a letter from secretary morrison of the american federation of labor to the maine federation, stating that the a. f. of l. stood strongly for ratification. mrs. whitehouse gave this letter to the newspapers; gave copies to every member of the legislature. she conferred with the president of the state federation, persuaded him to repudiate his former letter and to issue an appeal for the support of ratification. national leaders of both the democratic and republican parties sent telegrams to legislators. maine ratified on november 5—by a narrow margin of four votes.

after a long siege by the woman’s party on the governor, north dakota ratified in special session on december 1.

in the case of south dakota, governor norbeck agreed to call a special session of the legislature if the majority of the members would serve without mileage. late in november, alice paul received a telegram from governor norbeck saying that the session would not be called as he was sixteen answers short of a majority who were willing to serve without expense to the state. alice paul immediately sent anita pollitzer to the capitol to see senator sterling of south dakota. miss pollitzer showed him governor norbeck’s telegram to miss paul and told him that the suffragists would be greatly disappointed if the republican legislature of south dakota refused to meet, and a republican governor refuse to call a special session. he agreed that was a political mistake and in miss pollitzer’s presence, sent telegrams 431to his law partner, the chief politician of the state, telling him to do everything possible to have a special session called; to the chairman of the republican state committee, asking him to telegraph each member of the legislature, urging him to answer the governor’s appeal and to agree to come to the special session as the governor had stipulated, at his own expense. examining this situation superficially—or even closely—one would think that miss pollitzer had done everything that was possible. but there is no reckoning with alice paul. when miss pollitzer returned to headquarters, miss paul said simply, “we can do more.”

that afternoon miss pollitzer visited mr. mccarl, the secretary of the republican congressional committee in washington, who sent telegrams to all the republican leaders in the state, urging that they make clear to the republican governor and to the members of the legislature the importance to the republican party of a good record on ratification. three days later, a telegram came to washington announcing that a majority, willing to serve at their own expense, had been secured. south dakota ratified on december 4.

colorado, the last state to ratify in 1919, did so on december 12—but only after a long campaign, the result of local conditions.

january of 1920, in which five states came into the fold, was a highly successful month for the ratification record. rhode island and kentucky ratified in regular session on january 6. oregon, whose governor broke his promises many times, finally ratified in regular session on january 12. the state chairman, mrs. w. j. hawkins, campaigned vigorously here, assisted by her state organization and vivian pierce, national organizer. much equally vigorous work in washington supplemented her.

indiana ratified january 16 in special session.

wyoming was the last of the five january states. for months, governor carey had refused to call a special session. he had been peculiarly obstinate at the governors’ conference 432at salt lake city on august 14, where he had stated that he would not call a special session even if it were needed as the very last state. wyoming, it should be remembered, was the pioneer suffrage state. representatives of the woman’s party went at once to wyoming. mrs. richard wainwright, who was staying in the west, made it her special work to bring pressure on the governor. alice paul sent anita pollitzer to the capitol to talk with the congressman and senators from wyoming. they said that circumstances had arisen which made it impossible for them to try to force the governor. on the trolley car miss pollitzer met frank barrow, secretary to congressman mondell, and asked him for help. he agreed to give it. mr. barrow had edited the cheyenne tribune, the leading republican paper of the state, when anita pollitzer campaigned in wyoming the year before. he began urging that a special session be called and charged the governor with hurting the republican record on suffrage. immediately a statement appeared in the press from the governor, saying that he would call a special session, but not at the expense of the state; that the men must come without pay or mileage. wyoming is a huge state, and this was in january, a month of terrific snow storms. unless extra political pressure was applied, the legislators might not come from far-away ranches at their own expense. in the meantime, whenever politicians from wyoming arrived in washington, members of the woman’s party saw them at once. party members learned that a close political advisor of governor carey was going to spend one night in washington. they called on him at his hotel and told him that the responsibility of all this delay lay squarely on the republicans and on governor carey. he was highly indignant at the attitude of the woman’s party and their press campaign. nevertheless, he said that the governor was going to call a special session at once.

it was necessary to bring extra political pressure to bear, so long as governor carey’s request for a special session put it up to the members of the legislature, themselves, whether 433they would attend that session. anita pollitzer went to the capitol and got the political line-up from the political leaders. they divided the state into districts for her and told her who were the political bellwethers of each district. with this information, miss pollitzer went to dr. simeon fess, chairman of the national republican congressional committee. dr. fess sent strong telegrams to every one of the republican state leaders asking them to round up the legislators of their district, to see that they agreed to go to the special session at their own expense; asked them for a reply; told them he would wire again if a reply was not received.

on january 27, both houses of the wyoming legislature ratified unanimously.

the governor of nevada, a democrat, had refused to call a special session for many months because he was afraid that other measures besides suffrage would be brought up; but after a long pressure brought upon him by the national democratic leaders, he was induced to call the session. nevada ratified february 7.

the next state in the ratification line was new jersey, and new jersey gave the woman’s party a terrific fight. mrs. j. a. h. hopkins, state chairman, realized that with both the republican and democratic bosses opposed to suffrage, new jersey would never ratify unless the woman’s party made it a matter of the greatest political importance to the majority party—the republican party. she engineered the fight, assisted by betty gram and catherine flanagan.

in washington, alice paul sent anita pollitzer to frank barrow, secretary to congressman mondell, who had assisted the woman’s party so signally in the wyoming campaign, and asked him to go to new jersey. “but i could speak with no authority,” he said, “and mr. mondell will need me here.” anita pollitzer told him that the woman’s party would attend to all those matters. she then went again to dr. fess, chairman of the national republican congressional committee, and told him that they were likely to lose new jersey unless somebody was immediately sent from the congressional 434committee to assist. at once, dr. fess wrote a letter to mr. barrow authorizing him to go to new jersey in behalf of the national republican congressional committee. miss pollitzer next went to senator poindexter, chairman of the national republican senatorial committee, and told him that the woman’s party wanted mr. barrow to go to new jersey; that dr. fess had asked him to urge ratification on behalf of the republican congressional committee and that the woman’s party wished him in addition to urge on behalf of the republican senatorial committee. senator poindexter, thereupon, wrote a letter to mr. barrow authorizing him to go to new jersey in behalf of the ratification of the suffrage amendment.

last of all, miss pollitzer went to congressman mondell and broke the news to him that the woman’s party would like to commandeer his secretary to go to new jersey for as long a time as necessary, to work among republicans for the ratification of suffrage. following an entirely natural impulse, mr. mondell said, “i am vitally interested in suffrage, but i must say i need my own secretary in washington!” miss pollitzer of course represented to him how much it meant to the national woman’s party to have mr. barrow go—that it would take at the most only a week out of his work; and that it might mean several years out of the lives of the women, if the republicans allowed new jersey to fail in ratification. she added that the responsibility was on him and got up to leave. mr. mondell said, “tell mr. barrow to be in his office in ten minutes, as i shall want to see him there.” fifteen minutes later, miss pollitzer called on mr. barrow, who told her that mr. mondell had asked him to go to new jersey. in a letter to miss paul, mr. barrow listed the obstacles which he found in the way in the big new jersey battle:

1. the last republican state platform on which members of the legislature were elected, declared for a referendum.

2. the republican state chairman was an open and avowed anti-suffragist.

4353. the biggest republican boss in n. j. was actively hostile to the suffrage movement.

4. the biggest democratic boss of n. j. was actively hostile to the suffrage movement.

5. the tremendous political influence exerted through the liquor interests was actively and openly working against them.

new jersey ratified on february 10.

in regard to the new jersey campaign, betty gram has a vivacious article in the suffragist on march, 1920.

she says:

miracles happen sometimes—but the ratification of the suffrage amendment on february 10th by the new jersey legislature was not the result of a miracle.

every organizer of the woman’s party who had worked in the state whispered in my ear, “don’t try new jersey—it will never ratify.” it was therefore with reluctance that at the bidding of miss paul and mrs. j. a. h. hopkins, new jersey state chairman, i invaded the territory of the enemy and went to trenton, where on september 30th both the republican and democratic state platform committees were sitting.

despite all our efforts the republicans that day in open convention under the leadership of republican state chairman edward caspar stokes, declared in favor of a referendum, though each individual who had given a pledge to his constituents to support the suffrage amendment was left free to do so.

in significant contrast to this, the democrats, holding convention just across the street, declared for immediate ratification. this was done upon the persistent demand of the democratic candidate for governor, edward i. edwards, at the probable cost of the support of the most influential democratic boss in the state, james r. nugent, who in open convention fought the issue bitterly and pledged his twelve essex county assembly candidates against immediate ratification. they ran on that issue.

we watched the election returns on november 4th with acute anxiety. it was a critical point, for we had much to gain and everything to lose. the decision brought joy in one respect. edwards, a suffrage governor, was victorious, but alas! the result showed that the republicans, who had adopted the referendum plank in their platform, had carried the legislature. they had a majority in the senate of fifteen to six and in the assembly 436of thirty-three to twenty-seven—and among the twenty-seven democratic members were the twelve nugent men from essex.

we had only a fighting chance at best—but we set about the task resolutely. as usual, the first duty was to obtain an authentic report of the position of each newly elected man. we had secured pre-primary pledges from the fifteen edwards democrats, as well as a few from some staunch suffragists on the republican side, but only a very few, for not only was their state chairman opposed, but the republican boss of south jersey—former senator davis baird, whom we knew would fight us to the end—through his tremendous influence.

in a few days our poll was completed. the senate showed a bare but safe majority of one, for there we needed eleven votes. in the house our poll was much less encouraging. we needed thirty-one votes out of sixty—and we could count only twenty-five positive yeas. where and how to get the six more supporters out of a republican opposition was the bewildering—almost stupefying question. political pressure—both national and local—was the one way out. the time had passed for meetings at which to arouse sentiment of constituents—only pressure of the most intimate nature would move a vote to our side.

we first set about to choose our leaders in the respective houses. we wanted wide-awake, active militants—parliamentarians who would not demand the assurance of the usual excess number of votes before moving; men who would take up the fight eagerly, revel in the chance of victory, and with odds against them enter enthusiastically into a neck to neck race.

at a dinner given by the national woman’s party at newark on december 10th we accomplished our purpose—senator wm. b. mackay, republican, made an impassioned speech, publicly accepting the responsibility of leading our forces in the upper house. at this same dinner the newly chosen speaker-elect of the assembly, w. irving glover, republican, pledged his unequivocal support and straightforwardly stated that he would do all in his power to bring new jersey into the line of ratified states. the happiest moment of the evening arrived when republican majority leader of the house, harry hershfield, made known his position on the suffrage issue and expressed his desire that new jersey ratify. great applause greeted his words that the backbone of opposition had been broken and that he anticipated victory and would exert every influence to that end. the day after the dinner, mr. hershfield permitted to be given out from our headquarters a statement declaring that he would lead the fight in the house.

437the next day i went to washington. the interest of the two united states senators from new jersey as well as the congressmen had to be recruited. soon letters and telegrams were pouring into the state from washington. the resolution passed unanimously by the republican national committee in washington on december 10th did much to strengthen our position and before long the importance of the issue from a national standpoint began to dawn on the vision of some new jersey republicans.

the situation took on a more hopeful aspect—a few finishing touches only were needed—but just whose magic touch to summon was the problem.

we were at a standstill. two votes were still needed to reach the required thirty-one. then something happened.

inauguration day came and with it the tactical error of the opposition which acted as a boomerang and assured the house majority leader his position as head of his party. it gave into our hands the strategic parliamentary advantage—which we had coveted and desired for so long. an unexpected resolution calling for a referendum on all constitutional amendments, including pending ones, wedged in among routine measures, was surreptitiously introduced on inauguration day by assemblyman coles of camden and by a viva voce vote passed before more than fifteen members knew what had happened. twelve nugent men from essex and three baird men from camden were responsible for the railroading through of this resolution. this act of course was a planned and deliberately malicious thrust at suffrage.

the house adjourned and the anti-suffragists believe they had scored a point. the reckoning came later. editorials appeared in papers all over the state denouncing such methods. on the following monday the house reconsidered the coles’ resolution with a vote of forty-four to thirteen—and we proceeded with our fight. the ratification resolution was introduced immediately after and sent to the federal relations committee, which was favorable to our measure—four to one. the referendum resolution had gone to the same committee.

then the problem came of getting our resolution reported out first. we did not have a sufficient number of votes to hazard the chance of having the referendum resolution considered before ours, though some of our supporters preferred this procedure. a conference of leaders was called, to which i summoned miss paul, for the political leaders had had little comparative experience 438in handling constitutional amendments, while she had sponsored ratification in two dozen states.

a hearing before the committee was held on february 2nd. our state chairman, mrs. hopkins, and united states senator selden spencer of missouri, who came from washington, made splendid appeals for suffrage. that evening our resolution passed the senate eighteen to two as a result of the republicans having caucused in its support, after an appeal had been made to them to do so by senator spencer. there was no dissenting democratic vote in the upper house. that same evening the house rejected the minority report of the committee and accepted the favorable majority report on our measure. it was voted to a second reading and made the first order of business for monday evening, february 9th.

that same week influenza seized various members of the legislature and four of our most ardent supporters were ill. their absence meant defeat. every day we anxiously inquired after their welfare. for a time it seemed we would never have our thirty-one yeas together.

the day before the vote the national republican senatorial and congressional committees sent a representative, mr. frank barrow, from washington to our aid. he worked with the doubtful republican members.

at last the long looked-for moment arrived. at eight o’clock on monday evening the legislature which was either to reject or accept the ratification resolution convened.

the fight began with opposing men as aggressors and soon one resolution after another was being rushed to the speaker’s desk as a subterfuge of delay. roll calls were asked on each and every occasion, and as we strained our ears for the yeas and nays we received each time a shock at the transference of a vote. a roll call to postpone lacked only one of the necessary thirty-one votes.

debate lasted until one o’clock tuesday morning—five hours of continuous fiery combat—and then a motion to move the previous question fell like a pall on the troubled assembly. with trembling, tired hands we turned to our last spotless roll call and began to mark the records of men on the sands of time. clear and decisive came the yeas—inaudible and slow came the nays, and after them all the called, “joint resolution number one adopted—thirty-four to twenty-four.”

silence followed for long seconds and then the wild, almost hysteric cheers of women reverberated through the halls. never had there been such a demonstration of joy in the new jersey 439capitol and out of the galleries poured countless smiling women—bearing banners of victory, to take their places among the liberated peoples.

idaho, which ratified on february 11; arizona on february 12; new mexico on february 19; oklahoma on february 27 did so only after a struggle, but their cases were special only in detail.

in the meantime, there had been two january defeats, mississippi and south carolina; two february defeats, virginia for the second time, and maryland.

west virginia, which came into the fold on march 10, presents to ratification another dramatic story. i quote an article by mary dubrow, in the april suffragist.

they are all true—the old adages about pride and falls, boasters who forget to rap on wood, chickens and hatchings—west virginia proved it.

last august the card catalogue files carefully compiled by maud younger, legislative chairman of the woman’s party, showed an overwhelming majority for ratification in the west virginia legislature. to check up on this poll, a member of the legislature took another and discovered the same overwhelming majority. our national headquarters kept in touch with the situation until the special session was called.

the west virginia delegation in congress, the democratic governor of the state, and the republican national committee-man, all alike expressed certainty of ratification.

as i left for west virginia i confided to every one i met how happy i was to go to a state which would probably ratify unanimously, and every leading citizen i interviewed for the first four days confirmed my expectation.

then the legislators began to assemble at the kanawha hotel, the political center of charleston. i had their written pledges and i approached them more to exchange pleasant anticipations of victory than for any other purpose, and my fall began—a gradual inch-by-inch fall. the first man i met said: “well, i haven’t been here very long and i don’t know just how i will vote. you see our great state voted suffrage down by a majority of——” and the second man said the same thing, and the third repeated the remark.

then the splendid men who were leading our fight and who were standing staunch came to me with appalling reports of the 440wavering of this one and that one. it was an opposition stampede—nothing less.

i hurriedly told the washington headquarters the situation and the national republican senatorial committee was prevailed upon to send a representative, mr. frank barrow, to west virginia to urge the republicans in the legislature to remember their party and vote for ratification.

our chairman in west virginia, mrs. william gay brown, a staunch democrat, conferred with the democrats and made them appreciate their responsibility. miss anita pollitzer, legislative secretary of the woman’s party working in washington, convinced senator sutherland that his state could not afford to defeat the amendment.

we re-polled the house of delegates and one hour before the vote was taken in that body on march 4 we knew we had forty votes and the opposition had forty-one, and that there were six members who would tell neither friend, enemy, nor party leader how they stood—the silent six they were called.

in the senate we were certain of fourteen both ways. but the republican leaders were sure they could get one more. some of them were even sure they could get three! senator harmer, who led the fight in the senate and who is one of the best parliamentarians in the state, nevertheless was not for allowing ratification to come to a vote.

the vote was taken—and the clerk announced it—“fourteen to fourteen.” senator harmer saved the situation by changing his vote and making reconsideration possible. the senate adjourned. it was the turn of the house. when the debate began speeches were tossed from man to man like balls in a game, and never for four hours was there a moment of silence in the house. at six o’clock the vote was taken. forty-six men, in the face of the action of the senate, stood sound—not as republicans, not as democrats, but as suffragists, every one of the silent six voting for us.

with the announcement of the tie in the senate, national leaders who had paid no attention to our repeated warnings of peril sprang into action. representative fess, chairman of the republican congressional committee, immediately wired the following telegram to republicans:

“can not overestimate importance from party standpoint of republican legislature west virginia ratification and desire to maintain this position. any attempt substitute referendum would be grave mistake. can we count on your active and immediate aid?”

441senator poindexter, chairman of the republican senatorial committee, told of the situation by leaders in washington, sent the following message:

“republican senatorial committee is deeply concerned over result of suffrage vote in your senate. we count on west virginia’s ratification. republican party has pioneered every fight for suffrage and every state where republicans had control of the legislature has ratified. party will be greatly embarrassed if west virginia breaks that most gratifying record through failure to co-operate with us in this critical time.”

senator capper and senator kendrick likewise sent messages urging the republicans to reconsider this fatal step.

senator owen, senator walsh, and attorney general palmer, secretary daniels and secretary baker all used every effort to make it a democratic victory.

as a climax to all this, the president himself, realizing that one democratic vote could save the situation, sent every opposed democratic member of the senate a telegram urging him to cast the deciding vote. if we could not obtain one vote from this pressure, there was only one chance left to us.

senator bloch, who was wintering in california, had asked to be paired for suffrage. the opposition refused to consider his request and no pressure could obtain from the opposed senators this ordinary senatorial courtesy. a long-distance call was put in for senator bloch in san francisco. that night he started east.

now came the test of all our resources and of the loyalty of our friends, and i do not believe that any stauncher loyalty has been displayed by any group of men in the whole ratification campaign than by the fourteen suffrage senators of the west virginia legislature.

for five days these fourteen men had to wait in charleston while the fifteenth vote crossed the continent. every day they held conferences and buoyed one another up, while betty gram, who had been sent from washington to help in the campaign, and i hovered round about trying, with radiant cheerfulness, to instill into every one the feeling: “senator block is on his way and all is well with the world.” telegraphic despatches constantly arrived saying senator block was in new mexico or omaha or some other remote place that gradually grew nearer.

our enemies once more began their attack in the house. the opposition tried to reconsider and were beaten; tried a referendum and were beaten; tried to prevent consideration from being tabled and were beaten. nevertheless, all of the delegates of 442the lower house had to be held in charleston as well as the senators. one man got as far as his comfortable seat in the train, but we heard that he had bought a ticket. i took a taxicab, miss gram and mrs. puffenbarger, chairman of the woman’s committee of west virginia, took another. we arrived simultaneously and that bewildered delegate was rushed off the train and back to his less comfortable seat in the capitol.

at one time it looked as if we could not get enough votes to recess from day to day until senator bloch arrived, and our friends prepared for continuous session. they carried pillows in their hands and playing-cards in their pockets, and we on the outside had our arrangements made for relaying them sandwiches and coffee. it was the opposition that weakened in the face of this ordeal.

then came monday, the day set for mr. bloch’s arrival and suddenly a senator disappeared. we thought that he had been abducted. his thirteen suffrage colleagues rushed about searching for him. miss gram and i walked the streets, even daring to peer into barber-shop windows.

at last the mystery was solved. he had gone home and was delayed by a blizzard.

the senate did not convene until he reappeared at 2:50 and saved the situation.

and then senator bloch arrived—one man alone in two coaches bouncing behind an engine that broke the world record for speed. he had chosen the special train rather than the airplane that was put at his disposal by the republicans, but, as he said himself, he was traveling in the air most of the way to charleston. as he got off the train, pale but smiling, he was grasping his golf sticks desperately in one hand and a thermos bottle of coffee in the other. and at 2:40 a.m., when his private train pulled in, the town was out to meet him.

while the senator tried to catch his breath, he gave this statement to the press:

“the fourteen men who have so splendidly held together until my arrival deserve all the credit for the victory which we hope to gain tomorrow.”

even then our victory was won as by a miracle, for while we brought our vote from california, the anti-suffragists were also bringing a senator more quietly from peoria, ill. senator montgomery, who had moved out of the state and resigned from the senate, was persuaded to come back and attempt to regain his seat. but one of the opposition whom it had happened by chance senator montgomery had told personally of his resignation, refused 443to dishonor himself by voting to reseat even a member of his own party under these conditions, and the day was saved again for the women of america.

the last western state—washington—ratified on march 22.

thirty-five states had now accepted the susan b. anthony amendment. one more and it would become part of the constitution. however, that last state, every one knew, would be hard to get. the chances looked brightest in delaware and the woman’s party concentrated all its energies there.

ratification was brought up twice in delaware, the first time on april 1 and the second time on may 5. the fight was an intensive one, but it failed. this campaign had a quality of picturesqueness given to it by its mise en scene—the open square where the state house stands. dover green is surrounded by charming colonial houses with a beautiful colonial capitol dominating them. here, when the news came from philadelphia of the signing of the declaration of independence, a crowd burned the picture of king george—“compelled by strong necessity, thus we destroy even the shadow of that king who refused to reign over a free people.” the ancient whipping-post still stands in a yard adjoining the state house. a log cabin, which was put up fifty years ago, is still used as a lawyer’s office. the suffragist noted the fact that a yoke of oxen, drawing a plow in the ancient way, had been seen near dover when the ratification campaign was going on. this accumulation of historic atmosphere added its subtle weight to the regret of the suffragists when delaware failed them.

against highly organized opposition, the suffragists began work in delaware. florence bayard hilles, state chairman, conducted this important fight. she had the assistance of six national organizers: mary dubrow, anita pollitzer, catherine flanagan, betty gram, vivian pierce, elsie hill; of mrs. lawrence lewis, national ratification chairman; of mabel vernon, national secretary of the woman’s party. ultimately alice paul joined them. this able group produced 444a triumph of suffrage ratification in the senate on may 5. the vote was eleven to six. in the usual course of events, the ratification measure would have gone, after the senate passed it, to the house. the votes necessary to pass it in the house were not forthcoming. the legislature adjourned.

the woman’s party used the interval until may 17 when the legislature reconvened to wage a campaign against their opponents, by means of petitions, mass-meetings, and appeals to state leaders. president de valera, frank walsh, and other champions of irish freedom used their influence with the four irish members of the lower house. the american federation of labor also helped in this campaign. on june 2, when it became evident that the republicans in this strongly republican legislature, would not ratify, president wilson asked the democrats to give their aid. the president’s telegram ran:

may i not as a democrat express my deep interest in the suffrage amendment, and my judgment that it will be of the greatest service to the party if every democrat in the delaware legislature should vote for it.

delaware had been the first to ratify the constitution of the united states but it failed to ratify this second great instrument of freedom.

for two months the delaware members of the republican party had delayed the ratification of the amendment. in spite of repeated appeals to them, the republican national leaders refused to give the necessary support to assure victory in that state.

on may 18, will h. hays, chairman of the republican party, spoke at the hotel willard, washington, to women especially selected because of their wealth—in the hope that they would answer an appeal for funds for the support of the republican party. as each member of the audience took her seat, she found on her chair a slip which read in effect, 445“for the use of the republican national committee, i herewith enclose a check for $1,000.”

when mr. hays arose from his seat, elsie hill, well known as a national organizer of the woman’s party, arose from hers. as he started to speak, she said, “before you ask us to support the republican party, mr. hays, won’t you tell us what the republican party is going to do about ratification in delaware?”

the chairman immediately intervened. “i am sure mr. hays, if he has time in the course of his remarks, will answer that.” instantly sue white, one of the state chairmen, arose and demanded that the question be answered at once. mr. hays apparently did not hear. he moved to the front of the platform, opened his lips to speak. immediately benigna green kalb, a well-known member of the woman’s party, arose and said, “mr. hays, women will not give money for the next elections until they know whether or not they are going to vote in them. in delaware, connecticut, and vermont the republican party can answer that question.”

mr. hays said, “i suppose i may as well take this matter up at once. my dear ladies, if any one of you know anything whatever about practical politics, you would know that we do not carry legislatures around in our pockets. why don’t you go to delaware and work for suffrage?”

instantly anita pollitzer was on her feet. “i have been working in delaware, mr. hays, for six months. the legislators of delaware seem to think that the republican party can do something about suffrage in that state. some of the leading republicans of the lower house telephoned to me last night and asked, ‘what are the national republican leaders going to do about this deadlock here?’”

mr. hays attempted explanation; apology; prophecy. “every republican hopes that delaware will ratify. some one of the remaining states will be intelligent enough to act between now and election time. i feel sure women will vote in the next elections.”

446abby scott baker interposed, “mr. hays, why are you sure women will vote in the next elections? if the republican party cannot persuade the republican legislature of delaware to ratify, can it persuade the republican governors of connecticut and vermont to call special sessions, or are you depending upon the democratic states to enfranchise the women to whom your party is now appealing for funds?”

woman after woman arose and brought up the matter of delaware. mr. hays’ speech was rapidly disappearing before the onslaught. he had spoken on nothing but suffrage. many of the audience liked the interruptions no better than mr. hays. they groaned and hissed. but the suffragists kept on. edith ainge spoke. elsie hill arose for a second time and a third. finally, definitely enraged, mr. hays accused her of being a democratic woman who had come to interrupt his meeting. miss hill replied, “my father was for twenty years republican congressman from connecticut and for several years ranking member of the ways and means committee.”

mr. hays talked for nearly five minutes after this last interruption. he slid off the subject of delaware. he progressed as far away as abraham lincoln. lucy branham arose to bring his mind back to delaware. mr. hays was saying, “the great republican leaders of the past——” and his hands were uplifted to emphasize his statement. glancing down between them, his gaze was attracted by miss branham’s movement. “not now, young lady, not now,” he commanded, or suggested, or perhaps begged. miss branham bore up the aisle. neither mr. hays’ gesture nor sentence completed itself. “in conclusion,” he said, “i desire to state that the few women who are about to be enfranchised could do no better——” mr. hays’ conclusion merged with air.

in the meantime, the anti-suffragists in ohio had brought a suit attacking the validity of the ohio ratification on the ground that the state of ohio had the initiative and 447referendum on all acts by the state legislature and therefore must have it on ratification, if it were demanded by petition. they therefore demanded a referendum on the ratification of suffrage. the woman’s party contested this suit, engaging the following counsel: shippen lewis, george wharton pepper, and william draper lewis. it went through the courts of ohio to the supreme court of the united states, which sustained the validity of the ohio ratification.

the republican convention began on june 8 in chicago. delaware—whose legislature and governor were republican—had just-defeated ratification. there were only two other states from which it seemed possible at this time to obtain final ratification—vermont and connecticut. there were, to be sure, two other states which had not acted on the amendment—florida and tennessee. but there were clauses in their constitutions which provided that an election must occur between the submission of an amendment and its ratification. the fact that both vermont and connecticut were republican put the responsibility of finishing up ratification on the republicans. as repeated appeals to the national republican leaders had failed to induce them to bring sufficient pressure on the republican governors of vermont and connecticut, the suffragists felt that it was necessary to make a stronger protest than hitherto they had exerted against this republican inaction. they therefore decided to picket the republican national convention. the first day of the convention, mabel vernon led a long white-clad line of women, carrying lettered banners and the purple, white, and gold tri-color, from the woman’s party headquarters to the coliseum, directly opposite, where the convention was held. they marched across the street and took up their brilliant tri-color stand at intervals against its dull walls.

mary ingham bore a banner which said:

the republican party has the power to enfranchise

women. when will it do so?

448doris stevens’ banner read:

we have had enough resolutions.

give us the 36th state.

mrs. h. o. havemeyer’s banner said:

theodore roosevelt advocated woman suffrage.

has the republican party forgotten the

principles of theodore roosevelt?

mrs. m. toscan bennett’s banner said:

we protest against the continued disfranchisement

of women for which the republican

party is now responsible.

the republican party defeated ratification of

suffrage in delaware.

the republican party is blocking suffrage in

vermont.

the republican party is blocking suffrage in

connecticut.

when will the republican party stop blocking

suffrage?

this banner was also carried by catherine flanagan and lou daniels.

these banners were held during the first two days of the convention. on the third day, each of thirty women carried a new banner:

vote against the republican party as long

as it blocks suffrage.

this quotation from susan b. anthony also appeared on the picket line:

no self-respecting woman should wish or work for the

success of a party that ignores her sex.

—susan b. anthony in 1872 and 1894.

the oldest and the youngest pickets.

rev. olympia brown and miss rowena green at the republican convention, chicago, 1920.

photo copr. underwood and underwood.

449a favorite banner was:

republicans we are here.

where is the 36th state?

these banners were typical; many others appeared.

during the course of the convention the republicans inserted the following plank in their platform:

we welcome women into full participation in the affairs of government and the activities of the republican party. we earnestly hope that republican legislatures in states which have not yet acted upon the suffrage amendment will ratify the amendment to the end that all of the women of the nation of voting age may participate in the election of 1920, which is so important to the welfare of our country.

on the last day, therefore, a group of pickets hung, from the balcony in the convention hall, facing the speakers platform, a banner which was the answer to this ratification plank. it read:

why does the republican party block suffrage?

we do not want planks.

we demand the 36th state.

the effect of all this was that instant and urgent pressure to call special sessions was brought on the republican governors of vermont and connecticut by republican leaders.

in contrast to the treatment which the police of washington, boston, and new york had accorded the pickets, the police of chicago were friendly and accommodating. sometimes they even held the banners for them.

immediately following the nomination of senator harding, members of the woman’s party met him in washington in an interview arranged by genevieve allen. miss paul introduced mrs. albion lang, helena hill weed, and florence bayard hilles, each representing one of the three republican states which had not acted favorably on ratification; mrs. john carey, helen hoy greeley, emma wold and genevieve allen, representing women who could vote, and 450sue white, mary ingham, mrs. john gordon battelle, mrs. donald r. hooker, representing women who could not vote. the interview was utterly unsatisfactory—senator harding listened and evaded.

on june 15, louisiana, which met in regular session, defeated ratification. here, anticipating a little, it may be stated that on august 19, north carolina defeated ratification, also in regular session.

in the meantime, the woman’s party turned its attention to tennessee. up to this time, it had been considered impossible to ratify there, as there is a clause in the tennessee state constitution which says that the tennessee legislature cannot act on any amendment to the federal constitution unless a new legislature is elected between the time when the federal amendment shall have passed congress and its ratification by tennessee. the decision in the ohio case which was handed down at this moment and which indicated that both tennessee and florida could ratify legally, changed the whole complexion of the suffrage fight. the ohio decision, it will be remembered, was that ratification was an act of a legislature which was not subject to a referendum to the people. the woman’s party pointed out—and they had consulted many eminent lawyers on this subject—that the clause in the tennessee constitution was equal to requiring a referendum before submitting a constitutional amendment to the legislature. since by the ohio decision a referendum on such a matter was illegal, that clause in the tennessee constitution could not stand in the way of ratification by the existing legislature. sue white, tennessee state chairman, instituted an immediate campaign on governor roberts, pointing this out to him and asking him to call a special session. the woman’s party concentrated on getting the national democratic leaders to bring pressure on governor roberts.

in the meantime, leading democrats had gathered in san francisco, preparing for their national convention. abby scott baker took charge of the campaign to get the democratic 451leaders to bring pressure on the governor of tennessee. the democratic national committee passed a resolution calling on the governor to convene his session. homer s. cummings, chairman of the national democratic committee, called him on long-distance telephone and asked this of him. many others appealed to him. on june 23, president wilson telegraphed governor roberts as follows:

it would be a real service to the party and to the nation if it is possible for you to, under the peculiar provisions of your state constitution, having in mind the recent decision of the supreme court in the ohio case, to call a special session of the legislature of tennessee to consider the suffrage amendment. allow me to urge this very earnestly.

the president also sent a letter to acting united states attorney general william l. frierson, asking his opinion on the constitutionality of ratification by a special session of the tennessee legislature.

mr. frierson’s reply closed with this sentence:

i am therefore confident that if the tennessee legislature is called in session, it will have the clear power to ratify the amendment notwithstanding any provision of the tennessee constitution.

the democratic national convention met in san francisco on june 28. on the opening day of the convention, governor roberts announced that he would call the session on august 9. among the women who represented the woman’s party at the convention were abby scott baker, betty gram, mrs. lawrence lewis, mrs. william kent, sara bard field, ida finney mackrille, izetta jewel brown. the democratic party inserted a plank in their platform endorsing the federal amendment and calling for ratification.

tennessee then became the center of the woman’s party campaign—a storm center. it was a foregone conclusion that a tremendous anti-suffrage pressure would be brought on tennessee, the last state necessary to ratification, as it had been brought on delaware when delaware seemed likely to be the last state. alice paul realized that great national 452political pressure must be brought upon the tennessee legislators.

governor cox, the democratic nominee, was, of course, a focus for most of this political pressure. the woman’s party determined to make him realize, if possible, that tennessee, as a democratic state, was his responsibility. a huge deputation of woman’s party leaders from all over the country called upon governor cox in his office in columbus on july 16. governor cox said that he would co-operate with the woman’s party in this matter and he asked to have a committee appointed to confer with him in regard to tennessee. the democratic national committee met on july 20. the woman’s party lobbied this committee and got a resolution through urging immediate ratification by tennessee. on july 23, governor cox conferred with the committee—consisting of sue white, anita pollitzer, and mrs. james rector—which he had asked miss paul to appoint.

the republican national committee met on july 21. anita pollitzer, mrs. h. o. havemeyer, mrs. james rector, and others saw the members of this committee and secured from them a resolution urging that the republicans do all they could to obtain the last state.

on july 22, the date of harding’s notification that he was nominated for the presidency, two hundred members of the woman’s party, coming from all over the united states, dressed in white and carrying purple, white and gold banners, marched through marion to senator harding’s lawn. the lettered banners, borne by two pioneer suffragists, mrs. l. crozier french and mrs. e. c. green, read:

the republican platform endorses ratification of suffrage.

the first test of the platform will come when the

tennessee legislature meets in august.

will the republicans carry out their platform by giving

a unanimous republican vote in tennessee for suffrage?

453mrs. john gordon battelle, sue white, mrs. h. o. havemeyer, addressed senator harding and told him that he, as the republican leader, had the power to line up the republican members of the tennessee legislature and would be held responsible for them.

all this time the campaign in tennessee had been going on.

that campaign, which was to become fiercer and more intensive until it moved like a whirlwind, was conducted in three ways.

first, sue white, the state chairman and other members of the state organization, assisted by betty gram, catherine flanagan and anita pollitzer, national organizers, conducted the campaign. after the legislature convened mrs. florence bayard hilles, delaware state chairman, and mary winsor, of the advisory council, assisted in nashville. mabel reber and edith davis carried on an extensive and intensive work of publicity.

second, in ohio, abby scott baker, co-operating with mrs. james rector, kept in close touch with cox and harding, in order to get them to act upon the specific requests of the woman’s party which began to come from tennessee.

third, alice paul remaining in washington, planned every move, and kept in close communication with the political leaders who could influence cox and harding.

sue white, immediately on her arrival at nashville, opened woman’s party headquarters and took charge of the campaign on the legislators.

anita pollitzer went to the eastern part of the state and concentrated on the republican leaders.

betty gram went to the western part of the state and worked in the speaker’s district.

catherine flanagan went into the districts of men soon to be elected, and secured pledges from some of the nominees that they would support ratification. in one case, miss flanagan secured the pledge of a republican candidate whose democratic opponent was a strong anti-suffragist. a prominent democrat in the district came out in support 454of the republican nominee because he was for ratification.

if the three organizers had not made this intensive survey of these sections, they would not have realized that ratification votes were rapidly dropping away. legislators gave the excuse that although they voted for presidential suffrage in a previous session, they would not vote for ratification in this session because they considered it unconstitutional. alarmed at this defection, which was particularly noticeable among the republican legislators, anita pollitzer secured opinions favorable to the constitutionality of ratification by tennessee at this special session from the most eminent legal minds in the state, and sent them to each member of the legislature.

anita pollitzer also sent a telegram to abby scott baker, who, it will be remembered, was standing guard over the two presidential candidates in ohio, stating that the situation demanded harding’s immediate active support. mrs. baker telegraphed alice paul that she had seen harding in regard to this matter and that he had telegraphed two republican congressmen to give their support to ratification, and his friend, ex-governor ben hooper of tennessee, to send him a poll of the republicans. immediately on receipt of a telegram from alice paul giving this information, anita pollitzer hurried to the “hill-billy” region of the state, where ex-governor hooper lived. miss pollitzer went over the entire situation with him in detail, giving him the only first-hand information that he had received. the result was that he spent the whole day telephoning the doubtful republican legislators. he also telegraphed harding that the situation was critical and urged him to give all possible aid to the tennessee situation.

miss pollitzer then told ex-governor hooper that it was absolutely necessary to have a republican caucus. candler, the chairman of the joint caucus committee, was an anti-suffragist. congressman j. will taylor had, however, a strong influence with him. miss pollitzer started late that afternoon for knoxville, where congressman taylor lived, 455and arriving early in the evening put her case to him. he said that he had voted for suffrage in congress and would do all he could to help. the next afternoon miss pollitzer saw congressman taylor to see what had been accomplished. he said that he had been unable to get candler all day, was leaving the city in an hour. miss pollitzer called up the operator in athens. she said, “this is a matter of life and death. congressman taylor must speak with senator candler. i have been in athens myself and i know it is such a tiny place that you have only to look out of the door to know where senator candler is. you must find him for me.” in a few minutes senator candler came to the telephone. congressman taylor asked him if he would call a caucus of the republicans, and he agreed to do it. that night miss pollitzer took notices of this to all the papers. a telegram was sent to every republican member urging him to come to the legislature in time to attend this caucus. it was a necessary step to call this caucus, but it was equally necessary that all the important republican leaders of the state be there. catherine flanagan and anita pollitzer brought so much pressure to bear on these leaders—and this included getting their reservations and actually seeing them on the train—that they were all there. the republican leaders said in effect to the republican members of the legislature who were present, “we want the republican members of the legislature to give a majority of votes to ratification for the sake of their party.”

before the legislature convened, betty gram saw the speaker of the house, seth walker, a very influential person and to the suffragists, because of his position, probably the most important member of the legislature. he told miss gram that he was looking into the question of the constitutionality of ratification at this session, and if he became convinced of its constitutionality, he might even lead the fight for ratification. a few days later, just before the legislature convened, he told miss white and miss gram that he had decided that it was constitutional for tennessee to 456ratify and that they might count on his support. on the opening day of the legislature, betty gram asked speaker walker to go over the poll with her. to her intense astonishment, he told her that he had changed his mind and could not vote for ratification in this session.

when the woman’s party forces joined miss white in nashville at the convening of the legislature, the town had filled with strangers. the anti-suffrage forces had poured into the capital. lobbyists for railroads, manufacturing interests, and corporations of various kinds, came too.

one curious member of this army used to interrogate legislators as to their views. he said he was a reporter for a syndicate. nobody had ever heard of the syndicate he represented. when parley christensen, candidate for president on the farmer labor ticket, came to nashville to help with ratification among the labor members of the legislature, he investigated the record of this gentleman, accused him, through the press, of sinister purposes in lobbying. when this accusation appeared, the man hastily left town.

to off-set all this, the suffragists of the state, as was usual in the state campaigns, poured into the capital.

the atmosphere of nashville grew rapidly more active ... tense ... hectic.

the tennessee legislature convened on the ninth of august. it ratified on the eighteenth of august. the nine days between were characterized by work more intensive than ratification had yet known.

the tennessee campaign was a miniature reproduction of the big national campaign which the woman’s party had been waging ever since 1912. here the woman’s party was confronted with a double responsibility. it had to prove to the democratic governor, roberts—and it never relaxed for an instant in bringing it home to him—that he, as leader of the dominant party in this democratic legislature, was responsible for ratification and could bring it about. in addition and at the same time, the woman’s party had to make the republican minority realize that they were 457responsible for votes favorable to ratification from their men.

in all this work in tennessee, the woman’s party was enormously assisted by the political sagacity of their chairman, sue white, and the fact that all the politicians recognized that political sagacity. the experienced politicians said that they had never seen a more bitter fight in tennessee. when the legislature met, the suffragists had a majority on paper. but they knew from previous experience they could not trust this paper majority to remain stable.

the ratification resolution was introduced in the house and the senate on the same day, august 10. it was referred to a committee in both houses and these committees held a joint hearing on august 11. this hearing, a notable and picturesque occasion, took place in the great assembly hall of the capitol. both floor and gallery were dotted with the colors of the opposing forces. the most famous state authorities on constitutional law appeared in behalf of the suffragists.

the woman’s party had, of course, immediately ascertained who were the members of both houses who always supported governor roberts’ measures. they found that many of these were not supporting ratification. they went with a list of these men to governor roberts, called his attention to this significant state of things. they also sent the news to abby scott baker, who approached cox daily on the subject. cox responded by urging governor roberts to do all in his power to put ratification through.

sue white gave out daily statements that were models of succinctness and comprehensiveness, which warned governor roberts that he would be held responsible and warned the democratic party that it would be held responsible, if ratification did not go through.

realizing that they were strongest in the senate, the woman’s party wanted first to bring the matter to a vote there. they accomplished that on august 13, when ratification passed by twenty-five to four. until this vote was 458cast, the suffragists themselves did not realize what a degree of interest—due to their pressure on and from political leaders—they had developed in tennessee. the vote proved a great stimulus to the men of the lower house, who, up to this point, had been much more wavering in their attitude towards ratification.

the capitol in these last few days presented a scene of activity on the part of the woman’s party members such as no ratification campaign had ever known. they were at the house morning, noon, and night. they had to be there all the time because the fact that a member was numbered among their forces in the morning did not at all mean that he would be among them at night. the enemies of ratification made every possible attempt to steal suffrage adherents. realizing at last that they could not deflect men who were immovable on the ratification side, they began to introduce measures the passage of which would have been tantamount to defeat. for instance, a resolution was suddenly brought up one morning providing that the question of ratification should be referred to mass-meetings of the people to be held in every district on august 21. this would have meant a fatal postponement of ratification. many of the legislators would have liked to hide behind a measure of this sort, but realizing this, the woman’s party members told them that they would consider such a vote hostile to suffrage and would hold them responsible. the suffragists obtained sufficient support against the measure to get it tabled.

when it came to the last few days, the woman’s party members seemed to work twenty-four hours out of the twenty-four, and some think they worked twenty-five. the situation was complicated, as always at the last hour, by rumors. reports started and gained force every day that men were being bribed; so that legislators, about to declare for suffrage, were often held up by the feeling that that act might lay them open to suspicion. this brought about a condition of such uncertainty that neither side, suffragist nor anti-suffragist, could prophesy the outcome. the instant 459a man wavered, the woman’s party members, who, before the legislature convened, had been working in the legislative districts, immediately got in touch with the political leaders who controlled the situation in those districts. notwithstanding that nothing seemed stable at this period, the woman’s party members met every few hours and compared polls. these polls served a second purpose. they gave political leaders definite data as to the position of every man in the legislature. in all this confusion, the woman’s party always knew where it stood.

on the morning of the vote the suffrage workers rounded up all their legislative forces and saw that they arrived safely at the capitol. more rumors were afloat that legislators would change their vote at the last moment. in every case, the woman’s party saw these men again and made them realize that they were committed, not only to them, but to their political leaders.

just before the vote was taken, seth walker ruled all the women off the floor of the house.

two dramatic incidents marked the close of the campaign. the hero of one of these episodes was banks turner, of the other harry burn. to the very end the woman’s party was uncertain of both their votes.

banks turner was one of governor roberts’ closest friends. in considering the case of banks turner, it must always be held in mind that the woman’s party steadfastly kept the democrats to their pledges through cox’s constant pressure on governor roberts. it had at last penetrated roberts’ psychology that if he permitted ratification to fail in tennessee, the democrats would be held responsible by the women in the coming elections. the woman’s party saw governor roberts before the vote and reminded him of this. the woman’s party also saw cox before the vote and reminded him of this; also reminded him to remind roberts. when the vote was actually imminent, the roberts forces began to get alarmed; for they realized they had played with the issue too long. as has been said banks turner was one 460of the governor’s closest friends. banks turner had never actually said he was against ratification, but he had never said he was for it. no suffragist counted on him.

as for harry burn——

when anita pollitzer had been working among republican leaders, she had gone to harry burn’s republican county chairman to ask him if they could count on harry burn’s support for ratification. in her presence, he telephoned to harry burn and assured miss pollitzer that the suffragists could depend on him. when mr. burn appeared in the legislature, he was approached by suffragists and anti-suffragists in close and quick succession. after a while, he announced that he was uncertain. the fact that he was the youngest member of the legislature—scarcely more than a lad indeed—and that he was immensely popular and beloved—seemed to add an especial acuteness to the situation. to suffragists who approached him a few days before the vote, he said, “i cannot pledge myself, but i will do nothing to hurt you.”

of course that could be translated that he would not vote yes, but would not vote no—not vote at all in short.

with the poll virtually a tie, the suffragists could take no chances. miss pollitzer telephoned at once to the county chairman who had assured her of harry burn’s vote and told him the situation. the next day betty gram saw a letter, written to harry burn by one of the foremost political leaders of the state, which practically urged him—for his own political good—to vote no. members of the woman’s party saw harry burn and told him that they knew pressure was being brought upon him from state leaders against ratification. he would make no statement of support but he urged them to trust him and begged the suffragists not to tell the political leaders of the state that they knew these political leaders had broken faith and were persuading him not to vote for ratification. he was obviously much wrought up over the situation.

the date of the vote came and on the suffrage poll, harry 461burn was still marked doubtful. when he appeared in the corridors of the house, however, he wore the red rose of the anti-suffragists. one of the woman’s party organizers said to him just before the vote was taken, “we really trusted you, mr. burn, when you said that you would never hurt us.” he said, “i mean that—my vote will never hurt you.”

still he continued to wear the red rose of the anti-suffragists....

it was known to many that harry burn had recently received a letter from his mother asking him to support ratification. it was known only to the woman’s party how much political pressure to support it had been brought upon him.

the supreme moment arrived. ninety-six members were present out of a total membership of ninety-nine. the first test of strength came in a motion to table the resolution. harry burn’s name was called early in the roll. true to the promise of that red rose, he voted yes. the roll call went on, the members answering exactly according to expectation. what would banks turner do? if he voted with the suffragists, the result would be a tie, forty-eight to forty-eight; the motion would not be tabled. his name was called; he did not answer. the vote was now inevitably forty-eight to forty-seven for the motion to table. all seemed lost. but before the final announcement of the vote, turner arose and after a moment’s hesitation said:

“i wish to be recorded as against the motion to table.”

the resolution was still before the house, but this test vote showed a tie—one short of a majority.

then came the final vote.

now the stillness was like death. unless turner stayed with the suffragists and, in addition, another vote was gained, the amendment was lost. when harry burn’s name was called, he answered in a clear, loud voice, “yes.” the death-like stillness settled again over the audience in the 462galleries as the roll call approached the name of banks turner. he had voted against tabling; that did not make it certain that he would vote for the resolution.

“banks turner!” called the clerk.

“yes,” he answered in a solemn, low voice.

the resolution had carried—forty-nine to forty-seven.

instantly speaker walker, white-faced, was on his feet. “i change my vote from ‘no’ to ‘yes’” he said. of course he made this lightning change in order that he might move to reconsider the resolution. but he missed one point. the vote now stood fifty to forty-six. his vote had given the resolution a constitutional majority, that is a majority, not only of the membership present of the lower house but of the entire lower house. unwittingly, speaker walker killed one legal attack already prepared by the anti-suffragists in case the measure should pass.

an uproar of enthusiasm greeted the vote. state leaders who had assisted the suffrage campaign, yelled, clapped, stamped. women alternately laughed and wept; cheered and applauded. one legislator producing a bell from somewhere, rang it steadily. as for the suffragists themselves, naturally they went wild with joy; particularly the tennessee women, who were triumphant that their state had proved to be the needed thirty-sixth to give the franchise to women.

of course, the anti-suffragist red roses were in great evidence all during the voting. but after the vote was taken, they seemed to fade into the background. the yellow jonquils of the suffragists, the great purple, white, and gold banners of the woman’s party made tiny flares and big slashes of light and color everywhere.

the bizarre and sensational moves of the opposition—the withdrawal of the anti-suffragist members of the tennessee assembly to alabama until the suffrage members got tired and went home, the return of the anti-suffragist members, their assembly in a rump legislature, their “reconsidered” 463vote against the amendment—all that seemed important at the time. now it has faded to insignificance. the anti-suffragists, on this and other grounds, instituted a suit against the validity of the tennessee ratification. that suit and six attacks, also directed against the validity of ratification, are still pending.

the flag complete.

alice paul unfurls the ratification banner with 36 stars.

national photo co., washington, d. c.

in the meantime, however, connecticut has ratified.

in brief, the facts in regard to connecticut are these: governor marcus holcomb, one of the foremost anti-suffragists in the country, called a session of the connecticut legislature to provide the legal machinery to enable the women of connecticut to vote in the coming elections. the call was issued for september 14. the suffragists instantly took advantage of this special session to institute a campaign for ratification.

in addressing the legislators, governor holcomb said in effect: “do not ratify this session. it will be illegal, as ratification was not mentioned in my call. i will call you again for that purpose a week from today.”

nevertheless connecticut ratified on september 14.

catherine flanagan of the woman’s party personally brought the ratification from the secretary of state of connecticut to the state department in washington.

a week later, to avoid any question as to the legality of the first ratification, which had been attacked on the ground that the subject was not included in the governor’s message, connecticut ratified again.

the women of the united states voted in the presidential election of 1920.