botheration

(“why do you come here and bother us?”—chairman webb, at the suffrage hearing in washington.)

girls, girls, the worst has happened;

our cause is at its ebb.

how could you go and do it!

you’ve bothered mr. webb!

you came and asked for freedom,

(as law does not forbid)

not thinking it might bother him,

and yet, it seems, it did.

oh, can it be, my sisters,

my sisters can it be,

you did not think of mr. webb

when asking to be free?

you did not put his comfort

before your cause? how strange!

but now you know the way he feels

i hope we’ll have a change.

send word to far australia

and let new zealand know,

and oregon and sweden,

finland and idaho;

make all the nations grasp it,

from sitka to el teb,

we never mention suffrage now;

it bothers mr. webb!

alice duer miller.

131our idea of nothing at all

(“i am opposed to woman suffrage, but i am not opposed to woman.”—anti-suffrage speech of mr. webb of north carolina.)

oh, women, have you heard the news

of charity and grace?

look, look, how joy and gratitude

are beaming in my face!

for mr. webb is not opposed

to woman in her place!

oh, mr. webb, how kind you are

to let us live at all,

to let us light the kitchen range

and tidy up the hall;

to tolerate the female sex

in spite of adam’s fall.

oh, girls, suppose that mr. webb

should alter his decree!

suppose he were opposed to us—

opposed to you and me.

what would be left for us to do—

except to cease to be?

alice duer miller.

during 1916, the central department of the congressional union—the legislative—was in the hands of anne martin who after her notable success in making nevada a free state and with the added advantage of being a voter herself, was particularly fitted for this work. anne martin showed extraordinary ability in building back-fires in congressional districts, in keeping state and district chairmen informed of the actions of the representatives, in getting pressure from home upon them and in organizing the lobbying. maud younger, as chairman of the lobby committee, composed of women voters, assisted her. lucy burns edited the suffragist.

the friends of the susan b. anthony amendment were 132surprised—and of course delighted—when through the tireless efforts of anne martin—the suffrage bill came out of committee and onto the calendar of the senate on january 8. in the house at first, the situation seemed equally encouraging. but unexpected obstacles manifested themselves; continued to multiply and grow. presently there developed between the judiciary committee and the suffragists a contest similar to that of 1914 between the rules committee and the suffragists, but more intense.

the judiciary committee as usual referred the amendment to a sub-committee. anne martin lobbied the members of the sub-committee and in consequence of this pressure, the sub-committee on february 9, voted the report out—although without recommendation, to the full committee which would meet on february 15.

at this meeting, by a vote of nine to seven, the judiciary committee referred the suffrage resolution back to the sub-committee with instructions to hold it until december 14—nearly a year off. this was an unusual thing to do. after a sub-committee has reported a measure to the committee, it is customary to allow at least a week to elapse before it is acted upon, so that the members who are absent may be present when the committee, as a whole, votes upon it. there is a gentleman’s agreement to this effect.

in her revelations of a woman lobbyist, in mccall’s magazine, maud younger thus describes the meeting of february 15:

the day ended as discouragingly as it had begun and i reported the situation to mr. john nelson, of wisconsin, the only man on the committee who showed genuine enthusiasm.

“your amendment can’t come up tomorrow,” he assured me. “there’s a gentleman’s agreement that no action shall be taken on a bill for a week after the sub-committee reports it out. the matter lies over so that the members may be notified to be present. your amendment will come up next week.”

relying on this reprieve, i felt no apprehension when anne and i went to the capitol next morning. standing in the anteroom of the judiciary committee’s chamber, we watched the 133members passing through. the committee went into executive session and the door closed.

“there’s the gentleman’s agreement,” i said to anne. “nothing can happen.”

“no,” she answered meditatively.

we waited. an hour passed and mr. carlin came out. he walked close to anne and said with a laugh as he passed her, “well, we’ve killed cock robin.”

“cock robin?” said anne, puzzled, looking after him.

mr. nelson came out, much perturbed, and explained. upon motion of mr. carlin the judiciary committee had voted to send the amendment back to the sub-committee to remain until the following december.

this was in direct violation of the gentleman’s agreement but our opponents had the votes, nine to seven, and they used them. our amendment was killed. every one on the committee said so. every one in congress with whom we talked said so. the newspaper men said so. soon every one believed it but alice paul, and she never believed it at all.

“that’s absurd!” she said impatiently. “we have only to make them reconsider.”

at once she went over the list of our opponents to decide who should make the move. “why, william elza williams, of illinois, of course. he will do it.” she sent me to see him.

mr. williams was necessary not only for purposes of reconsideration, but because, when he had changed his vote, we would have a majority in committee. but he did not see the matter at all in the same light in which miss paul saw it. he had not the least intention of changing his vote. i pointed out that the women of illinois, being half voters, had some claims to representation, but he remained obdurate.

when this was reported to miss paul she merely said, “mr. williams will have to change his vote. elsie hill can attend to it.”

so elsie, buoyant with good spirits, good health, and tireless enthusiasm, pinned her smart hat on her reddish-brown hair and set out through illinois for mr. williams’s vote.

presently the ripples of elsie’s passing across the illinois prairies began to break upon the peaceful desk of mr. williams in washington. i found him running a worried hand through his hair, gazing at newspaper clippings about mr. williams and his vote on the judiciary committee. resolutions arrived from labor unions asking him to reconsider; letters from constituents, telegrams, reports of meetings, editorials.

134on march 8, a deputation of twenty members of the congressional union, led by maud younger, called on representative williams. i quote the suffragist:

mr. williams received the women with cordiality and miss younger at once laid before him the object of the visit.

“on the fifteenth of february,” said miss younger, “the sub-committee reported out the suffrage amendment. we are told that there is a gentleman’s agreement to the effect that when a sub-committee reports, no action shall be taken that day but the matter shall lie over for a week. four of our supporters were absent on the day of the report and the opposition sent the amendment back to sub-committee. there were nine votes cast in favor of sending it back, and seven against. we feel that it was you who cast the deciding vote, for if you had voted with supporters of suffrage, the vote would have been a tie, and the amendment would not now be in sub-committee.

“you told me that you were in favor of having this matter remain in committee until december, because you felt it would be embarrassing to some men who would run for office next fall. as a trades-unionist, as well as a woman voter, i feel that the eight million working women of this country are entitled to as much consideration as are a few politicians.”

miss younger then introduced mrs. lowell mellett, of seattle, washington; mrs. william kent, of california; mrs. gilson gardner, mrs. charles edward russell, of illinois; anne martin, of nevada; each of whom made an appeal to mr. williams to give his support to a report from the judiciary committee during the present session.

miss martin said:

you are in what seems to us a very undesirable position. you are a representative from a suffrage state, from a state where women have the right to vote for president. you are a professed suffragist, yet you are the only member of that committee who is a suffragist and who is in the position of having voted with the professed anti-suffragists against a hearing.... we urge you to do everything in your power to reconsider the smothering of this resolution, and bring up the question in committee again as soon as possible, to report it to the house and then to leave to the rules committee the question of what time it shall have for discussion in this session. we urge this most earnestly.

135mr. williams replied:

i am pleased to hear from you ladies and to know fully your side of this case.

if i remember correctly the conversation you refer to in which i spoke of some embarrassment—not to myself, but to some of my colleagues—i think i stated the condition of the calendar and the business of this session. i have not double-crossed anybody. i have not taken any sudden change of front. i have told every representative of the suffrage organization who has visited me that i do not favor a report at this first session of the sixty-fourth congress. i gave, as my primary reason, the crowded condition of the business of this congress. i incidentally—sometimes in a good-natured way, as i remember—stated that it did not embarrass me to vote on the question because i was already on record, but it might embarrass some of my colleagues. my real views have been that congress has duties in this, a campaign year, when all members hope to leave at a reasonable time within which to make their campaign; that this session is not a good time to take upon ourselves the consideration of any unimportant question that can be disposed of just as well at the next session.

with a campaign approaching and two national conventions in june, i do not believe it wise for your cause to crowd this matter on now. i do not believe that it would get that consideration that you will get after the election and after these necessary matters—matters of importance and urgent necessity—are disposed of.

i am opposed to smothering anything in committee. i do not propose to smother this in committee. i intend, when i think it is the proper time, to vote the susan b. anthony amendment out and vote for it in the house. now that is my intention. i have not said that i would not do so at this session. i think the strongest that i have put it is that i would not do so unless the work of the session is cleared away so that we can get to it.

now i have said more than that. at any time that you get a full attendance of the committee, or those absent represented by pairs so that both sides are represented, and no advantage can be taken and no criticism made of what takes place, whenever there is what is equivalent to a full committee present, i am willing that the committee shall again vote on the question and determine whether they want it out now.

miss younger: before the conventions will meet in june, congress will have been in session six months, and we ask you for only one day out of the six months. some of those other questions, 136such as preparedness, are not ready to come before congress.

mr. williams: you would not be satisfied with one day.

miss martin: that is all we had last time and we were satisfied.

mrs. russell: whatever action congress takes or does not take on preparedness, we women will have to stand for it. any program that congress puts through we shall be involved in. isn’t that just one more reason why we ought to have a vote promptly?

mr. williams: yes, but you cannot get it in time for the emergency that is now before us. i believe this: if women had full political rights everywhere there would not be any war. but that cannot be brought about in time for this emergency.

“we cannot conceive,” said one member of the delegation at this juncture, “of any situation which will not permit of three-quarters of an hour being taken on the floor of the house for a vote.”

mr. williams: we have no right to refuse to submit it. i would not smother it in committee at all, but i believe the committee has a right to exercise their discretion as to when it shall be submitted.... how do you take my suggestion? i am willing that a vote may be had at any time if there is the equivalent of a full attendance of the committee. can that be secured?

miss martin: i have been working with this committee for nearly three months, and i do not know of any session at which they have all been present. you impose upon us now a condition that you did not exact when this amendment was smothered.

i think that we must regard a motion to postpone until after election as an action unfriendly to suffrage.

mr. williams: it may be. i do not see how it can be.

“last year,” a member of the delegation then reminded mr. williams, “the amendment was postponed and voted on immediately after the elections were safely over. the plan now is to postpone it until after the elections to the sixty-fifth congress are over and no one’s election will be jeopardized. we do not like to have the vote taken in each congress immediately after election.”

miss martin: we are not saying anything with reference to a vote on the floor of the house at this time. we are simply asking that the judiciary committee perform its function and judge the bill on its merits and make its report to the house. does not that appeal to you?

137mr. williams: yes, it does. i am told i am the only member of the committee who voted to postpone the amendment, who is a representative from a suffrage state. somehow or other you have put the burden on me.

miss martin: you are. the burden is on you.

miss younger: if we could prove to you that with your vote we would have a majority of the committee, would you be willing to vote to report it out to the house?

mr. williams: there would be ten besides myself favorable to reporting it out? yes, if you have the ten.

miss martin: i have them right here. you are the eleventh. we have those ten votes.

mr. williams: well, i hope you have. may i ask you just to read them?

miss martin: these are the ten who are for reporting the amendment: representatives thomas, of kentucky; taggart, of kansas; dale of new york; neely, of west virginia; volstead, of minnesota; nelson, of wisconsin; morgan, of oklahoma; chandler, of new york; dyer, of missouri, and moss, of west virginia. that makes ten.

mr. williams: and mr. williams will make eleven. when will it be possible to get them all together?

miss martin: we were hoping to do that by tomorrow. mr. dale was here but he has been called back to new york. mr. moss has been seriously ill but has promised to attend the meeting tomorrow. i will read the names of the men who are against a report. they are all anti-suffragists and you are classified with them: representatives webb, of north carolina; carlin, of virginia; walker, of georgia; gard, of ohio; whaley, of south carolina; caraway, of arkansas; igoe, of missouri; steele, of pennsylvania, and, until now, yourself.

mr. williams: if a majority of the committee want to reconsider it i will vote in favor of it.

miss martin: what would you do if we could only get ten suffrage members present tomorrow and they were a majority of those present?

mr. williams: let us not make any further agreement. i have agreed to your former proposition and i will stand by my word.

miss martin: we are sure you will.

after the deputation had left his office mr. williams promised miss younger and miss martin that, whenever the requisite number of friends of suffrage were present at a 138meeting of the judiciary committee, he himself would move a reconsideration of the question.

again i quote miss younger’s, revelations of a woman lobbyist:

we now had a majority of one on the committee. we had only to get the majority together. it seemed a simple thing to do, but it wasn’t.

the number of things that could take a congressman out of town on tuesday and thursday mornings, the number of minor ailments that could develop on those days was appalling. it seemed that every time a congressman faced something he did not want to do, he had a headache.

monday after monday, wednesday after wednesday, we went from office to office, inquiring solicitously about each man’s health. was he quite well? did he have a headache or any symptoms of internal disorders? was his wife in good health? his children? could any business affairs arise to take him out of town next day?...

the weeks went by and we were not able to get our majority, together.

“you think you’re going to bring that question up again,” said mr. webb, the chairman. “no power on earth will do it. it’s locked up in sub-committee till next december, and it’s going to stay there.”

this was repeated to miss paul. “nonsense!” she said. “of course it will be brought up.”

but why should all this petty bickering, this endless struggling with absurdities be necessary in order to get before congress a measure dealing with a question of public good? no man would run his private business that way. yet that is the way public business is done.

finally after weeks of working and watchful waiting i reported to anne on wednesday that a majority of our members were in town and well. we were jubilant. early next morning we were before the doors of the judiciary committee to see them file in. they arrived one by one, solemn, nervously hurrying by, or smiling in an amused or friendly way. mr. hunter moss, our staunch friend, appeared. mr. moss was dying of cancer. though often too ill to leave his bed, he asked his secretary to notify him whenever suffrage was to come up so that he might fight for it. mr. moss was our tenth man. we recounted them anxiously. ten supporters, ten opponents—where was mr. dale of new york? i flew downstairs to his office—i don’t 139know who went with me but i have a faint memory of red hair—and there he was in his shirt sleeves calmly looking over his mail.

“hurry!” we cried. “the committee is ready to meet. every one’s there except you!”

he reached for his coat but we exclaimed, “put it on in the hall!” and hurrying him out between us we raced down the corridor, helping him with the coat as we ran, then into the elevator and up to the third floor and to the committee room. we deposited him in one vacant seat. our majority was complete!

as we stood off and looked at our eleven men sitting there together, gathered with so much effort and trial, no artist was ever prouder of a masterpiece than we. we stood entranced surveying them until mr. webb sternly announced that the committee would go into executive session which meant that we must go.

in the anteroom other suffragists gathered, also the newspaper men. every one said that in a few moments the amendment would be reported out. but the minutes ran into hours. our suspense grew. each time those closed doors opened and a member came out we asked for news. there was none. “carlin’s got the floor.”

the morning dragged past. twelve o’clock came. twelve-thirty. one o’clock. the doors opened. we clustered around our supporters and eagerly asked the news.

well, carlin got the floor and kept it. he took up the time. it got late and the members were hungry and wanted to go to luncheon, and there would have been a lot of wrangling over the amendment. so they adopted carlin’s motion to make suffrage the special order of business two weeks from today.

“it’s all right,” our friends consoled us. “only two weeks’ delay!”

but why two weeks? and why had mr. carlin, our avowed and bitter enemy, himself made the motion to reconsider, tacking to it the two weeks’ delay, unless something disastrous was planned?

now began a care and watchfulness over our eleven, in comparison to which all our previous watchfulness and care was as nothing. not only did we know each man’s mind minutely from day to day, but we had their constituents on guard at home.

washington’s mail increased. one man said, “i wish you’d ask those pennsylvania ladies to stop writing me!” mr. morgan said, “my secretary has been busy all day long answering letters 140from suffragists. why do you do it? you know i’m for it.” mr. neely, at a desk covered with mail, broke forth in wrath, eyes blazing, “why do you have all those letters written to me as though you doubted my stand? i’m as unchangeable as the medes and persians!”

on the 27th of march, the day before the vote, telegrams poured in. we stumbled over messenger boys at every turn in the house office building. late that afternoon as anne and i went into mr. taggart’s office we passed a postman with a great bundle of special-delivery letters.

mr. taggart was last on the list. every one else was pledged to be at the meeting next day.

“yes, i’ll be there,” said mr. taggart slowly and ominously. “but i’ll be a little late.”

“late!” we jumped from our seats. “why, it’s the special order for ten-thirty!”

“well, i may not be very late. i’ve got an appointment with the persian ambassador—haroun al raschid,” said he, and looked at each of us defiantly.

we pleaded, but in vain. without mr. taggart we had not a majority. what could we do? we discussed it while we walked home in the crisp afternoon air. there was no persian ambassador in america, but a chargé d’affaire, and his name was not haroun al raschid, but ali kuli kahn. we smiled at mr. taggart’s transparency, but we were alarmed. our amendment hung on mr. taggart’s presence.

suppose after all he did intend to consult persia on some matter of moment to kansas? to leave no loop-hole unguarded, mary gertrude fendall next morning at nine o’clock took a taxi to the persian legation and left it on the corner. at ten o’clock she was to ring the bell, ask for mr. taggart, drive him in haste to the capitol and deposit him in the midst of our majority. as she walked up and down, however, the problem became acute, for how could she get him out of the legation when he did not go in? at last, ringing the bell, seeing one attaché and then another, she became convinced that nothing was known of the kansas congressman in the persian legation, so she telephoned us at the capitol.

this confirmed our fears. every one else was present; mr. taggart was not in his office; no one knew where he was. ten-thirty came; ten forty-five. there was nothing of the vanquished in the faces of our opponents. mr. carlin grinned affably at all of us, and the grin chilled us. we looked anxiously from one to another as the meeting began. ten supporters—ten opponents. 141mr. taggart, wherever he was, had our majority. the minutes dragged. our friends prolonged the preliminaries. a stranger near me pulled out his watch. i leaned over and asked the time. “five minutes to eleven.” and just at that moment, looking up, i saw mr. taggart in the doorway—mr. taggart, very much of a self-satisfied, naughty little boy, smiling triumphantly. that did not matter. our majority was complete.

the committee went into executive session, and we moved to the anteroom. “a few minutes and you’ll have your amendment reported out,” said the newspaper men. “it’s all over but the shouting.” the situation was ours. suffrage was the special order; nothing could be considered before it, and we had a majority. as the moments passed we repeated this, trying to keep up our courage. for time lengthened out. we eyed the door anxiously, starting up when it opened. we caught glimpses of the room. the members were not sitting at their places, they were on their feet, shaking their fists.

“they’re like wild animals,” said one member who came out.

“but what’s happening?” there was no answer. the door closed again.

slowly we learned the incredible fact. when the door had shut upon us, mr. carlin immediately moved that all constitutional amendments be indefinitely postponed.

now there were many constitutional amendments before that committee, covering many subjects: marriage, divorce, election of judges, a national anthem, prohibition. mr. carlin, to defeat us, had thrown them all into one heap. a man could not vote to postpone one without voting to postpone them all. he could not vote against one without voting against them all. were these men actually adult human beings, legislating for a great nation, for the welfare of a hundred million people?

the motion threw the committee into an uproar. our friends protested that it could not be considered; suffrage was the special order of the day. mr. moss moved that the suffrage amendment be reported out. the chairman ruled this out of order. now there was a majority in that committee for suffrage and a majority for prohibition, but they were not the same majority. one of the strongest suffragists represented st. louis with its large breweries. if he voted against postponing the prohibition amendment he could never again be re-elected from st. louis. yet he could not vote to postpone it without postponing suffrage also.

through the closed door came the sound of loud, furious voices. we caught glimpses of wildly gesticulating arms, fists in 142air, contorted faces. one o’clock approached. mr. moss came out and crossed quickly to the elevator. we hurried after him.

“indefinitely postponed,” he said indignantly, not wanting to talk about it.

“but our majority?”

“we lost one.”

“who?”

“i cannot tell.” he stepped into the elevator. the other men came trooping out. our defeat was irrevocable, they all said. nothing could be done until the following december.

“you see,” said mr. taggart, looking very jubilant for a just-defeated suffragist, “you women can all go home now. you needn’t have come at all this session. but of course you women don’t know anything about politics. we told you not to bring up suffrage before election. next december, after election, we may do something for you.”

our opponents, secure in victory, grew more friendly; but as they warmed, our supporters became colder. mr. chandler flatly refused to stay with us.

“i’ve voted for your amendment twice,” he said, “and i won’t vote for it again this session. that’s final.”

i also heard rumors of mr. neely’s refusing to vote for it, so i caught him in a corridor and hurried beside him, talking as i walked.

“that true,” he said. “i won’t vote for it again this session. it’s no use talking. i am as unchangeable as the medes and persians.”

“but that’s just what you said when you were receiving so many letters that you thought we doubted you! you said nothing could——”

“i’ve got some bills of my own to get out of this committee,” said he, waving aside the medes and persians. “i won’t get them out if you keep bringing up this suffrage. good day.”

in commenting upon the action of the judiciary committee, miss alice paul said:

the action of the democratic leaders at washington in again blocking the suffrage amendment by postponing indefinitely its consideration in the judiciary committee is an additional spur to suffragists to press forward with their plan of going out through the suffrage states to tell the women voters—particularly those who are supporting the democratic party—of the opposition which the party is giving to the federal amendment at washington.

143we have now labored nearly a third of a year to persuade the democratic leaders in congress to allow the amendment to be brought before the members of the house for their consideration. the rebuff in the committee today shows the necessity of not delaying longer in acquainting the four million voting women with what is going on in congress.

many months still remain, in all probability, before congress adjourns. we will do our utmost in these months to create such a powerful party of voting women in the west as to make it impossible for the democratic leaders at washington longer to continue their course of refusing to let this measure come before the house for even the few minutes necessary for discussion and a vote.

miss younger says further:

the following tuesday found me as usual in the judiciary committee room. when i appeared in the doorway there was a surprised but smiling greeting.

“you haven’t given up yet?”

“not until you report our amendment.”

for the first time mr. webb smiled. there was surprise in his voice. “you women are in earnest about this.”