The question now under discussion not only represents the changed opinion of our country, but it proposes to remove a distinct and oppressive discrimination against one great class of our citizens. When the fourteenth amendment was adopted, it conferred citizenship upon all persons "born or naturalized in the United States"; the fifteenth amendment forbids discrimination on account of race or color.. Thus the Constitution, às it now stands, takes the citizens of every State under Federal protection except women. They can never secure that protection by State action. We bitterly protest against this continued injustice and ask a Federal amendment to right the wrong,

Congress has already referred the prohibition amendment to the several legislatures. It is claimed by some that prohibition is supported by stronger public opinion in the Nation than woman suffrage, because more States have adopted it and hence State rights may be abandoned in the case of prohibition but not woman suffrage. The facts are curious and enlightening. There are twelve full suffrage States and woman suffrage is part of the State constitution. There are exactly the same number of States with prohibitory laws of similar history and standing (Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia). There are 9 prohibition States wherein the law is solely statutory (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Utah, Indiana, New Hampshire, Tennessee); 4 States (North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, Virginia) where the law is statutory, but was submitted to a referendum; and 2 States (Idaho and Maine) wherein the law by statute was first tried and a constitutional amendment afterwards submitted to the voters.

Woman suffrage can not be secured by statute, nor by statute with referendum, hence the methods which have chiefly secured the successes of the prohibition law have been denied to the suffrage question. For example, Iowa has for many years been classed as a prohibitory State and now has a statutory prohibition law, but it has just rejected a constitutional amendment. The same State by the vote of the same classes rejected woman suffrage two years ago. The sentiment for woman suffrage is, I believe, as strong for suffrage as for prohibition, yet the law exists for prohibition and is constitutionally impossible for woman suffrage.

New Mexico offers an especially curious discrimination against a fair chance for woman suffrage. The constitution of that State provides two methods of amending. The process prescribed for suffrage amendments is that an amendment must first secure a three-fourths vote of the total membership of the two houses of the legislature and on referendum three-fourths of the highest number of electors voting in the whole State and at least two-thirds of the total voting in each county. In those States wherein a majority of the votes cast at an election instead of a majority cast on an amendment is necessary to secure its adoption, the amending of the constitution is extremely difficult, and a three-fourths vote would render amendment utterly impossible. Yet New Mexico has just adopted a constitutional amendment establishing prohibition. The reason is that such classes of amendment need only to secure a majority of the membership of each of the two houses of the legislature and on referendum a majority of the electors voting on the

proposition. Here is a case where the same constitution provides a fairly easy method for the prohibition amendment and an utterly impossible one for woman suffrage. Such discriminations fill suffragists with maddening indignation.

These two questions of proposed reform appeared in our country about the same time. They have not been supported by the same groups nor made the same appeal, although many persons have advocated both reforms. A conscientious comparison of the progress made by them with the provisions of the laws and constitutions taken into account will prove to any investigator that woman suffrage has made greater gain, for it has made the race with the continual greater handicap of preventive, legal obstructions.

Suffragists now ask for an equal chance with prohibition, an equal chance with the women of our allied and our enemy nations.

They are justified in expecting that every member of Congress who voted to send the prohibition question to the legislatures will vote to give the woman suffrage question the same chance and that too without regard to his personal views on the merits of the question. It is, as Mr. Webb has so ably pointed out, only a referendum to the legislatures that they ask.

They are justified, too, in expecting that many men who believe that prohibition is not properly a question to be included in the national constitution, will vote to send woman suffrage to the legislatures because it is undeniably a constitutional question.

While the world is fighting for democracy let not the petite morale of State rights block our own national progress.

We appeal to all Members of Congress to vote "yes" on the Federal suffrage amendment.

And this little disquisition on State rights, Mr. Chairman, I have dedicated to Mr. Webb. [Laughter.]

This morning certain questions were asked which I would like to make a little comment about. The question was asked as to why women opposed having suffrage submitted to the women themselves. Let me say that when suffrage sentiment was weak in this country we found, exactly as men find in their political parties and all kinds of campaigns, that progress was made more rapidly under campaign conditions than under those that were purely educational. Therefore we appealed all over the country for a referendum on woman suffrage. In those days we had not yet learned how unprotected the election. laws had left amendments, and so these appeals were made. Now, at that time every opponent of woman suffrage in every legislature so appealed to, and every opponent in the State who wanted to fight against us, came to the legislatures and opposed the referendum. That is, whatever we wanted they did not want us to have and, consequently, we did not secure a referendum many times when we ought to have had it; they postponed it until it was difficult to hold organizations together, difficult to win what was really ours. As time passed on and sentiment increased through education and even througn campaigns that we lost, for we always left behind us in most States a majority converted to it, even though we did not get them recorded for it, by the influence of the progress of other countries, we have now come to the time when we no longer want a referendum, when we no longer will take a referendum and when we, therefore, come to Congress and ask for a Federal amendment.

Now, you will find that every opponent in the House of Congress, and every opponent outside of Congress who will come to appeaĺ against it, will tell you that the way to get woman suffrage, if you want it in this country, is to take it to a referendum; and the reason why is because that is the thing that we do not want, and so they want us to have it. You will find that they have said "Why do you not submit this question to the women?" That sounds plausible, but the reason why we oppose that is because it is neither legal nor constitutional. When When you say "Submit the question to the people" it can not be done, for in no State in the Union are men people, and it can only be submitted to men who are half the people. It is manifestly unjust to submit a question which concerns one-half the people to the other half, and that is the reason why we do not want a referendum. On the other hand, if you submit it to both men and women, which would be democratic, it is neither legal nor constitutional, except where women have it and where, consequently, there is no need for submitting it. What we ask, then, is for justice.

A gentleman this morning asked a question as to how we would like the idea of having the question submitted to conventions, which the Federal Constitution provides for. The reason why we do not want that method is because it has never been tried. The Constitution provides for it, but we now have 17 amendments and none of them have ever been submitted through that process. It would take a longer time, more money on the part of the States, more money on the part of both the opponents and friends of suffrage, for it would need, before it could be carried out, a machinery which would require extra legislation and a great deal of additional trouble. If any Member of Congress shall propose such an amendment or such a condition for our amendment, that it be referred to the conventions which are constitutional and which are provided for in our national document-if such a proposal is made I ask this: How do you think you will like the news to travel all the way around the world, to France, to England, Canada, Sweden, and Italy, where they are pledged to give woman suffrage, that the Congress of the United States finally submitted the question to the States, but took a method which had never been tried before, because they believed it was a harder method. [Applause.] Does the mother of democracy want to have a thing like that written into her history? It was asked how we would like it and answer it would make us fighting mad.

It is asked how we like the seven-year limit. No limit was ever put upon any amendment until one was put on the prohibition amendment. It has been stated by lawyers inside of Congress, and a very great many of them outside, that such a provision as a part of the amendment is illegal, that it is impossible to place a time limit in any other way than by an amendment to the Constitution. The time limit means two amendments bound up in one. The opponents of prohibition, I believe, tacked that provision onto the amendment and they may tack it onto this one. We have asked advice about it, and while you will all agree that lawyers never do agree and that there is a difference of opinion, yet the opinion which seems to have the most common sense behind it is, if the limit is seven years, that when the seven years are up, if the ratification has not been completed, those who are interested will enjoin the national Secretary of State against declaring the ratification closed, and the Supreme Court

will declare that that part of the amendment is unconstitutional, and the time limit will thus be removed.

However, there are those who think that it will carry the whole amendment and declare the whole proposition illegal. Naturally, therefore, we do not like the time limit. If the time limit were constitutional, we would have no objection whatsoever to it. I believe that when the Federal amendment passes the House, as we expect it to do on January 10, it will go at once through the Senate. I believe before spring we shall have it ratified by some legislatures already sitting, including that of the State of New York. [Applause.] And I believe that we shall have our three-fourths before the spring of 1919. We have no objection to the seven-year limit in itself, but we have objection to it for the technical reason that we believe it may involve the legality of our question.

As to the question of this morning, concerning the feeling for woman suffrage in the South, I have brought with me this afternoon a statement, which I will submit, and not bother you to read, of editorial clippings taken from southern papers, the Atlanta Constitution, the Houston Chronicle, the Richmond (Va.) Journal, the Mobile Item, the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, and so on. I will just

read a clipping or two.

Says the News and Observer, of Raleigh, N. C., Secretary Daniels's paper:

It is to be hoped that Congress will supplement the good work it has done in connection with prohibition by promptly passing the resolution for submitting woman suffrage.

Says the Selma (Ala.) Times:

Why should there be so much solicitude and alarm for State rights and State sovereignty, provoked by the threatened passage of the amendment, while the prohibition amendment is viewed either with unconcern or approval? We do not discern the exact difference 'twixt tweedledee and tweedledum.

Says the Herald, Lexington, Ky.:

It would be fitting that the Legislature of Kentucky should be the first to ratify the Federal amendment.

Says the Tennessean and American, Nashville, Tenn.:

The Congress of the United States should at the forthcoming session make provision for submitting to the States for ratification an amendment to the Constitution conferring suffrage upon women. The time is opportune for the submission of the amendment.

Says the Chronicle, Houston, Tex.:

Previous to the election it was conceded that a national amendment granting women the franchise could not be adopted because the 15 Southern States would oppose it. The South finds itself in a position where it could no longer take such a stand without exhibiting gross ingratitude.

Thus by their support of President Wilson the women have removed by far the greatest obstacle to the passage of the suffrage amendment.

Says the Journal, of Richmond, Va.:

The war has brought woman into new relations with the State; she has shown a limitless capacity for service and for organization; the Government in every branch has called upon her for work, money, and devotion; she has gone to the front as nurse, ambulance driver, and relief worker as unflinchingly as any man has gone. "Now, why," she is asking, "may I not have a dignified place in the body politic?" An answer, other than "yes,' will be difficult for any Senator or Representative to explain, for it will stamp him as a man of narrow vision unaware of the trend of the world's affairs.

All over the South leading newspapers are calling on Congress to pass the Federal suffrage amendment as the best expedient for securing the nation-wide suffrage that all concede is surely coming.

These editorial utterances come from every State and from the leading papers of the South. The Atlanta Constitution has spoken, the Houston Chronicle, the Richmond (Va.) Journal, the Mobile Item, the Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, and a host of others.

See what they say:

It is to be hoped that Congress will supplement the good work it has done in connection with prohibi.ion by promptly passing the resolution for submitting woman suffrage. There is no reason why popular reforms in this country should wait because of the war. (News and Observer, Raleigh, N. C.)

Whether one likes it or not woman suffrage is in the new order and is coming more rapidly than anyone would have thought three years ago was possible. The carrying of New York is like the taking of a commanding citadel. (Charleston (S. C.) Post.)

Why should there be so much solicitude and alarm for State rights and State sovereignty provoked by the threatened passage of the Anthony amendment, while the prohibition amendment is viewed either with unconcern or approval? We do not discern the exact difference 'twixt tweedledee and tweedledum. (The Times, Selma, Ala.)

*

*

I et no man who is opposed to woman suffrage because of special interests or of tradition-bound intelligence attempt to hide behind any plea of State rights as a defense for a vote cast against the submission of the Federal amendment. In this day of world war it would be puerile for a man to attempt to defend opposition to the Federal amendment by any twaddle about State rights. It would be fitting that the legislature of Kentucky should be the first to ratify the Federal amendment. (The Herald, Lexington, Ky.)

* * *

The extension of suffrage to women throughout the Nation upon equal terms with men-whi h is nearly at hand-will be the crowning glory of American political achievement since the Republic was founded. (The Georgian, Atlanta, Ga.)

* * *

The Congress of the United States should at the forthcoming session make provision for submitting to the States for ratification an amendment to the Constitution conferring suffrage upon women. The time is opportune for the submission of the amendment. (Tennesseean and American, Nashville, Tenn.) Previous to the election it was conceded that a national amendment granting women the franchise could not be adopted because the 15 Southern States would oppose it. The South finds itself in a position where it could no longer take such a stand without exhibiting gross ingratitude.

Thus by their support of President Wilson the women have removed by far the greatest obstacle to the passage of the Susan B. Anthony amendment. (Chronicle, Houston, Tex.)

The war has brought women into new relations with the State; she has shown a limitless capacity for service and for organization; the Government in every branch has called upon her for work, money, and devotion: she has gone to the front as nurse, ambulance driver, and relief worker as unflinchingly as any man has gone. "Now, why," she is asking, "may I not have a dignified place in the body politic?" An answer other than "Yes" will be difficult for any Senator or Representative to explain, for it will stamp him as a man of narrow vision, unaware of the trend of the world's affairs. (The Journal, Richmond, Va.)

Mrs. CATT. I wish also to answer a little more fully a question concerning the New York vote. I do not think that Mrs. Whitney made one point clear to you. The vote could not officially be given out in the State of New York until the soldier vote was in. Agents were sent to France to secure that vote. They had to return with it. That vote was distributed to the election precincts all over the State. Then, the returns had to go to the boards of election in the counties and from the counties back to the State. They were not in the hands of the secretary of state until December 29. We were not able to secure those figures without going into the board of elections in Albany and having those figures copied after December 29. We did go into the board of elections office in the city of New York. That was the reason why we have them in the city of New York and why we do not have them from outside the city. I have brought to