Слике страница

the legislature. The influence of the voting women in passing those bills is recognized in California. There is a list of the bills that the women were in back of [exhibiting paper]. There are bills relating to the Commonwealth. There is a better child-labor law. There is an extension of the eight-hour law for women. There is a law giving equal guardianship of the children to the father and the mother. There was provision made for a State training school for delinquent girls, with a board of directors of five. Gov. Johnson has just appointed this board of directors for this school for delinquent girls, and he has appointed five women to administer this school. There was an industrial-welfare commission to establish the hours of labor and the conditions of labor for women; to provide seats in places of work for women.

And there were a number of laws having to do with the home— the cold-storage conditions; the milk inspection; a law prohibiting the destruction of foodstuff fit for human consumption; cruel and inhuman punishment prohibited in the State prisons and reformatories; the age of consent raised for girls to 18 years; a pension fund for public-school teachers.

All these laws have to do with the welfare of the people. They are just as you might have expected-the things the women are taking the most interest in. You might say that laws of this kind are being passed in nonsuffrage States. True; a great wave of progressive democracy is sweeping over the country, bringing a greater justice and a larger opportunity to all. Woman suffrage is coming with the spread of this new freedom and is an integral part of it.

Gentlemen of the committee, we do not ask you whether you believe in votes for women, although we think you must after what you have heard this morning; we ask you to recommend this amendment to the Constitution, so that it may go before the House of Representatives and may then be submitted to the legislatures of the individual States. We ask you to spare us the delay involved in waiting for legislatures to pass bills submitting the question to the people; we ask you to spare us the work of going to every hamlet in every State to educate the individual voter, which is a tremendous work to force upon the women of this country. But we are going to do it if we have to; you know we are going to do it; you know we are not going to stop until it is done, because we believe that only with the ballot can we best serve our homes and our children. There are nearly 4,000,000 enfranchised women in the country; we deserve your attention. We will not rest until all the women are enfranchised. [Applause.]

Mrs. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I have just received a message saying that Congressman Knowland, of California, is present and desires to be heard.


Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am proud indeed to follow one of the representative women voters of the State of California. [Applause.] My friend and colleague, Representative Mondell, in a speech which he made a few minutes ago, declared that frequently women voters residing in his State,

where blizzards rage, wanted to get into a more balmy climate where they might still exercise the right of franchise, and that it was indeed deplorable that they could not go into the balmy South. If there be any of those constituents of Mr. Mondell's who are desirous of getting out of the cold and disagreeable weather of the State of Wyoming, I would invite them to the orange groves of California [applause], where they can enjoy both the balmy climate and the right of the ballot.

The operation of the law has converted those citizens of California who were originally opposed to equal suffrage. For years the movement for equal rights for women was opposed in California, and we heard the same arguments advanced as we hear to-day in opposition to the amendment now pending before this committee. We have tried suffrage in California, and many of those who were most bitterly opposed to the movement at one time are now glad that California has given the franchise to the women of that Commonwealth. They have demonstrated their ability to make proper use of the privilege, thus causing everyone to admit that equal suffrage has proved an unqualified success in the State of California. [Applause.]

What I desire to impress upon the members of this committee, as a Member of the House of Representatives of the National Congress, is that you should not deny to the membership the right to at least vote upon this important question. [Applause.] You may possibly have your own views, but even though you may oppose the moveinent I contend it is your duty to report to the House, in order that every Member of that body may have an opportunity to register his vote for or against the proposed constitutional amendment. [Applause.]

I do not, in the limited time which I have, desire to enter into a discussion of the suffrage question, because I expressed myself upon the floor of the House on February 20 quite freely upon this important question; but I simply desire to say, in conclusion, and reiterate, all that the Members who are in favor of suffrage ask is that you give the House an opportunity to vote. [Applause.]

Mrs. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say when, in introducing Representative Knowland, I said he wished to speak, I did not want it to be understood he had not been asked to speak, because he had been; but it was his willingness to come as a Member of the House that was in my mind.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is acquainted with the well-known modesty of Mr. Knowland, as well as his great willingness to speak in behalf of woman suffrage.

Mrs. EVANS. I will now introduce to the committee Mrs. Donald Hooker, of Baltimore, Md., who will speak, as I understand, to the point of the line-up against the Democratic Party in Maryland.


Mrs. HOOKER. If you know women as I do, gentlemen of the committee, you doubtless think we are very courageous over there to be suggesting such an awful thing as a line-up against a party; and yet we have been taught if we say we want to get a thing you have got to be able to pay for it; and then, if you have not very much to offer, it is better to offer that little than to offer nothing at all.

Now, I have two things to ask you to-day: First, I want you to go a little way with me on my imagination, and then I want you to go a little way on your own imagination. The place I want to take you to with me is simply to tell you a perfectly nonsensical story which does not amount to much.

There was once upon a time a woman who went into a hat shop, as women sometimes do, and she saw a very attractive creation standing up on one of the little stands on which hats are displayed, and she said I would like to have that hat, and when it was handed to her she noticed it was a very expensive hat, and the woman said, "Will you have it charged or do you wish to pay for it now?" The woman looked very much aghast and said, " Indeed, I shall do no such thing; I do not intend to be robbed; if you give me the hat, you will give it to me gratis; I can not enter into any such bargain as you would have me."

The point of that is we know you gentlemen in the Federal Government are not there primarily as philanthropists; you are interested in the country at large; you wish to see the country go forward and you can not give more than you can afford; and that is precisely the reason why we have never come forward to address this committeewe had nothing to give in return. Now we have 10 States; we have the money to pay for our bonnet, and so we think it is merely reasonable for us to ask you for it. We are in a much different position than we ever were before and we like it much better. Don't you ?

The second place I wish you to go, right in your own imaginations, is to put yourselves right in our position-a somewhat flabbergasting thing for a man to do, especially if he lived where I did, in Maryland. I ask you to imagine yourselves as citizens of California-a woman, mind you-and then as citizens of Maryland, and then ask yourselves what, under the circumstances, you would do. Suppose you came there from California, as a friend of mine recently has, and as long as you lived in California you had your inalienable right as a citizen-what would you do if in a great many States, some States provided suffrage, States where men are much more numerous than women in a considerable number of States, as they are-and then went into a State where you were not enfranchised. Wouldn't you stand all aghast to find your rights abridged, and, after all, don't you think the first person you would go to would be Uncle Sam? Don't you think the first persons you would go to would be the lawmakers of this great country, who are supposed to look out first and foremost for the rights of the individual citizen?

With us the rights in our State are being abridged. We all, if we lived in California, would be entitled to the right of suffrage in California, but if we go into a nonsuffrage State our suffrage rights are taken from us. We maintain it is unconstitutional to have a different state of affairs existing in this country, and we maintain it is the business of the Federal Government to see to it that the rights of the individual citizens are not abridged. And that is the second thing I wish you to imagine; because, after all, we have always been taught the best thing to do is to do as you would be done by. If you imagine yourselves in the place of the woman, whose rights are taken away from her in the nonsuffrage States, I think your hearts will be at once softened and you will see what you will have.

I thank you very much. [Applause.]


Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will bring the hearing to a close-the time allotted to the Congressional Union. I would like the time to make just a few remarks.

I think myself fortunate. When I came down from Boston to attend this hearing I did not know who was to be heard and thought we had two hours. I intended to make quite a speech, and had written one out. When I got here last night I was told we had an hour and had 10 speakers, and no one was to speak more than five minutes. I was limited to two. So that I think myself lucky that our time is not yet up.

And now, Mr. Chairman, this talk we are hearing about the Democratic Party being responsible, and about the women in the Democratic States that were being appealed to and told, as women, to line up is a position that strikes me at first with terror. I am on the side of Democracy; I would hate to see that happen, and I would hate to have the question put to me, as a woman, to use my influence to try that propaganda or that policy. I would dodge that, if I could, because I am on the side of the administration. But I want this bill to be taken up; and whatever the demonstration, which I think under the circumstances may do much harm, I hope that there shall not be this line up, because I am on the administration side.

I have got the best argument for woman suffrage, one that appealed to me. I believe in a whole lot of other things, but as time has gone on one has pushed itself forward, and it was put into my head in reading Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom. [Laughter.] You have all read the book, no doubt; you have all been uplifted and inspired by it, as every American must who reads it. The thesis of that book, the thing that makes it so interesting, is President Wilson's diagnosis of the trouble with democracy nowadays. Why do we need to talk about the new freedom, we whose fathers died for freedom to win us self-government? Why do we have to talk about the new freedom? What is the trouble with the old freedom? President Wilson tells us that in the days when our Government was founded the Government was a very simple affair. There were but few functions that the Government exercised, and the domestic unit and the political units were such that all the people knew about everything that was done. They knew their lawmakers, and the laws that were made were mostly affairs of school tax and matters of domestic concern, and democracy was a real, live, practical thing. when there was an intimate union of the personal experience of the home and the experience of the masses of the people. Democracy, said President Wilson, was a success then. The trouble, he says, nowadays is that in the new democracy and economic developments of modern times private affairs and public affairs have been cast asunder and the masses of the people have no part of their daily life which has a public aspect. Public affairs are not a part of daily affairs. Even men who are interested in their business, and busy about that; then they all go to a political meeting in the evening; it has nothing to do with their walk of life. Now, says President Wilson, one way to get back to where your fathers and my fathers were is to open anew channels of vital communication between the Government and

the daily lives of the people-between Government matters and matters of daily life.

Now, I think that is one of the wisest, one of the matters of most comprehensive political diagnosis of our generation. I never could see how people could talk about it more. It shows how masterful a person he is in the science of government. And I was interested to find how to go about it, and read on to see how he was going to tell us, but he did not tell us at all. He left us with that prognosis, without giving one way how to do it. There is more than one way that you can do a thing always, but there is one way that will surely advance that thing, and that is to make the home makers-the mothers who are shaping the lives of children, who are rearing the bodies of citizens to come forth, whose housekeeping is becoming a matter of public affair, milk inspection, pure-food laws, marketing, cold storage, garbage collection, playgrounds, schools; a mother discharging her function in rearing her children and maintaining her home is indeed a mother-part of the municipality, part of the State, and part of the Federal Government; the woof and the warp of our daily life is connected with our legislative life. You can trust a woman to find that out, and you can trust her to bring this matter about.

Mr. NELSON. May I ask right there? You spoke very highly of our President, and we all admire him; you said you were with the present administration. How can you reconcile the fact that the President can reverse his position upon that to which the party has committed itself and not be able to side with the women for whom there is no party pledge?

Mrs. EVANS. I do not uphold him one bit.

Mr. NELSON. How can you explain it?

Mrs. EVANS. I think it is perfectly clear. He has got to live. When he says that he is bound by the platform, he is talking by and large. The platform can not tell him about Mexico, because a new position has arisen.

Dr. KING. You would expect the President, when he saw he was wrong, to reverse his attitude?

Mrs. EVANS. Of course.

Mr. McCoy. And if he sees himself wrong on the suffrage he may change his mind.

Mr. DYER. Has he anything of more importance to think about than suffrage?

Mrs. EVANS. He has questions that are more urgent.

[Cries of "No."]

It is a kind of political adjustment. If he thought that it would have been the proper thing to do, I dare say he would have done it; but I leave him to speak for himself.

Mr. DYER. In his New Freedom, did you find anything there that would lead you to believe he is in favor of ladies having the suffrage? Mrs. EVANS. I would say in his work on the New Freedom he laid down certain principles and propositions which, if he can reason— and he certainly can-I have always believed if he was brought to give his attention to the matter, which he never did, I have no doubt as to how he would stand, because he is a man of logic.

Mr. NELSON. Haven't you gotten the impression that President Wilson was very much of a leader?

« ПретходнаНастави »