Читать книгу The Story of the Woman's Party - Inez Haynes Gillmore - Страница 10

Table of Contents

We now return to the work in Congress. Again it is necessary to go back into history a few months.

All these months, the work of organizing the nation-wide demonstration of May 2—which had been decided upon at the opening meeting of the Congressional Union for 1914—had been going on.

The Congressional Union sent organizers into all the States of the Union to make plans for the demonstration. Minnie E. Brooke went through every State in the South. Mabel Vernon, one of the organizers for the Congressional Union, traveled through the southwestern part of the country and up through California, ending her trip in Nevada. Crystal Eastman of the Executive Committee took care of the Northwestern States, Emma Smith DeVoe covered the Far Western States; Jessie Hardy Stubbs, the Middle Western States; Mrs. Lawrence Lewis and Alice Paul, assisted by Olive Hasbrouck, New England and the Middle Atlantic States.

On February 12, the National American Woman Suffrage Association promised its co-operation also, and from that date aided in making the demonstration a success.

The demonstration—taking the form of parades in most cases, meetings in a few—occurred in at least one great city in every State. The following resolution was adopted at the various gatherings.

Resolved, that this meeting calls upon Congress to take immediate and favorable action upon the Bristow-Mondell Resolution enfranchising women.

The culminating demonstration occurred May 9 in Washington. There was a mass-meeting at the Belasco Theatre, and following this a procession starting promptly at three o’clock, marched to the Capitol. At the foot of the Capitol steps, the enormous gathering sang the Woman’s March. Then five hundred and thirty-one delegates representing every Congressional and Senatorial district in the country, bearing resolutions passed at the country-wide demonstrations, marched up the long steps into the great Rotunda of the Capitol. A Committee of Senators and Representatives awaited the delegates, received the resolutions and introduced them on the floor of each House of Congress.

Here, as always, Alice Paul visualized her work in pageantry. On this occasion, that pageantry was particularly beautiful. Zona Gale writes in the Suffragist:

“I shall watch it, but it will not mean anything to me,” said a visitor to me on Saturday, but that night she said: “I leaned out of my window, and held my screen up with one hand, and let the sun beat in my face for the forty minutes that you were passing, and I wept. To think of your being part of it—and caring like that—and the men there on the sidewalk holding back, by what right, what you ask!”

The effect of this lengthened—and therefore accumulative—nation-wide demonstration was immediately felt at the national Capitol. Between the dates of the demonstration throughout the States May 2, and the demonstration in Washington, May 9, the Judiciary Committee reported the Mondell Resolution without recommendation, but with an overwhelming vote, to the House. This marked an epoch in the Suffrage work in the United States; for Suffrage had never been debated on the floor of the House, and not since 1890 had it progressed beyond the Committee stage in the House. The Resolution rested on May 5 at the foot of the highly congested House calendar. On May 13, Representative Mondell introduced a Resolution asking time for an early consideration of the Suffrage Amendment. The adoption of this Resolution meant that the Amendment would be taken up, debated, and voted on.

The Rules Committee, to which the Resolution was referred, failed to act upon it. Suffragists began to besiege the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee, however, proved unamenable to argument, discussion, or entreaty.

Later in the year, in a speech at the Newport Conference, Lucy Burns said of the Rules Committee that it “adopted devious means for avoiding action on the Suffrage Resolution. It was difficult for them to vote against it, and it seemed difficult for them to vote for it. They apparently decided that the best policy for them to pursue was to take no action at all, so they hit upon the happy expedient of holding no meetings whatever.”

A detailed account of the action of the Rules Committee proves the adamancy of Party control. It gives some idea of the obstacles which ingenious politicians can put in the way of citizens, even though those citizens are making a perfectly legitimate request.

Mr. Henry, the Chairman of the Rules Committee, had declared in the spring that he thought it was out of the power of his Committee to take action (i.e. on the matter of the Suffrage Resolution which was only to allot time in the House for the discussion of the Suffrage Amendment) since the Suffrage Amendment had not been favorably acted upon at the last Democratic Caucus: “You may tell this to the Press. You may tell it to the newspapers,” Mr. Henry said; “my hands are tied.”

However, early in June, the Suffragist says, “Mr. Henry’s view of his political helplessness weakened slightly.” He promised to report out the Suffrage Resolution. But he could not be prevailed upon to state when he would do so. The Congressional Union, therefore, organized a series of deputations which visited the Rules Committee during all the long, hot summer and the long, hot fall. Deputations from nearly every State in the Union and from nearly every occupation and profession of women waited upon the members of the Rules Committee. The reader must remember always that they were asking—not that the Amendment be passed—only that a few hours be set aside for the discussion of the Suffrage question in the House of Representatives. Repeated deputations called upon individual members of the Committee. On June 10, the Committee met, but decided to postpone action on the Suffrage question till July 1. Mr. Henry left immediately for Texas. A large deputation came to Washington to be present at the July 1 meeting. Many of the most prominent members of the Club women’s Deputation of five hundred, who had called the afternoon of June 30 on the President, remained in Washington overnight, so that they might be present at the meeting.

When, however, they arrived at the Committee room, they were told that the Committee would not meet, although no notice had been given of any change of date of the meeting. Mr. Henry had not returned to Washington. There was a quorum of the Committee in town; but the Democratic members said that they were bound by a “gentlemen’s agreement” among themselves not to meet. August 1 was set for the next meeting.

On July 13, a deputation of more than a hundred members of the Congressional Union, led by Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, and Mrs. Gilson Gardner, called upon the individual members of the Rules Committee. They asked each member to sign a petition requesting the Acting Chairman, Mr. Pou, to call the Committee together for the purpose of reporting out the Resolution on the Suffrage Amendment. This petition was signed by the two Republican members of the Committee in Washington, and the one Progressive member. The two Democratic members then in Washington refused to sign. The petition was presented to Mr. Pou in his office by Representative Mondell.

Mr. Pou rose from his chair, viewing with amazement the numbers of the deputation as they filed into the room till all available space was occupied, leaving the majority of their number in the corridor. Mr. Pou definitely declined to call the meeting, although a quorum of the Committee was in the city, and although all of the Republican members on the Committee and the Progressive member had requested a meeting. Mr. Pou stated that he was bound by a “gentleman’s agreement” entered into by the Democratic members to hold no meetings of the Committee before August 1. He said, “The Democratic members agreed not to hold any meetings until August 1. In view of that understanding, I would not feel at liberty to call the Committee together. … When the Republicans were in charge, they decided what they were going to do; now that we are in charge, we decide what we are going to do.”

On August 1, a deputation consisting of Lucy Burns and Mrs. Gilson Gardner from the Congressional Union accompanied by Maude F. Clark, called upon Mr. Pou. The forthright Lucy Burns began. “Mr. Pou, today is the first day of August. You told us when a Committee of our Organization called upon you in July that the Democratic members of the Committee had a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ not to hold a meeting until August 1. Now that the day has come we should be glad to know when a meeting of your Committee will be held to consider House Resolution 514, allotting time for the consideration of the Suffrage Amendment in the House.”

Mr. Pou informed the delegation that Mr. Henry, Chairman of the Rules Committee, would return to Washington on Monday, August 3, and that a meeting of the Committee would be called for that day. Among other things, Mr. Pou made the significant statement, “The Rules Committee has in its keeping the policy of the Democratic Party in Congress.”

On August 3, a second delegation from the Congressional Union, consisting of Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, Mrs. Gilson Gardner, Dr. Clara E. Ludlow, went to attend the promised meeting at the office of the Chairman, Mr. Henry. The elusive Mr. Henry was at last visible in the flesh. He informed these women that no meeting of the Committee had been called for that day. He did not know when it would be called, nor what measures it would consider. He suggested that they call again in a few days.

On August 28, the Rules Committee finally met. A deputation from the Congressional Union presented themselves at the door. The deputation consisted of Mrs. Gilson Gardner, Minnie E. Brooke, Mrs. S. B. McDuffie, Virginia Arnold.

At the door of the Committee room, Mr. Henry’s secretary declared that it would be impossible for him to take a message or a card to Mr. Henry.

“I should be glad, then,” said the gently diplomatic Mrs. Gardner, “to send a card to other members of the Committee.”

“The Chairman has given orders,” said the secretary, “that no messages may be sent in to the Committee room.”

“I quite understand,” said Mrs. Gardner, “that Mr. Henry can speak for the majority members of the Committee, but surely not for the Republican and Progressive members, and I should like your permission to send word in to one of them.”

The secretary maintained that this was against Mr. Henry’s specific orders.

Mrs. Gardner then went on very gently: “It is not the desire of the deputation to disturb the Committee; but, on the other hand, it is the sense of the deputation that it is necessary to send the Committee a message. What would you suggest that we do?”

The secretary considered and decreed, “A message might be sent in by telephone.” Mrs. Gardner accepted the use of Mr. Henry’s desk telephone, called up Representative Kelly who was attending the meeting in the adjoining Committee room, and asked if he would bring the Suffrage Resolution to the attention of the Committee. Mr. Kelly promptly promised to call up the Suffrage Resolution if it were possible to do so. This colloquy effectively brought the matter before the Committee.

The Suffrage Resolution was brought up, but a substitute motion that the Committee adjourn was immediately made and carried. It was a tie vote, but Mr. Henry, as chairman, cast the deciding vote. The Committee accordingly adjourned without having taken action on the Suffrage Resolution.

The Congressional Union, undaunted, maintained its siege of the Rules Committee until Congress adjourned in October. Throughout the remaining months of that Congressional Session, however, the Rules Committee continued its policy of evasion. No action was taken before adjournment.

Of course, all this blocking of their efforts on the part of the Democrats made inevitable the election policy which the Congressional Union was about to adopt—that of holding them “responsible.”