the basis upon which these statistics have been obtained lays them en to serious question as a basis of argument for either side. I should like to put on the record the following divorce statistics, hich present some conclusive evidence. EXHIBIT H. DIVORCE AND SUFFRAGE. tatistics compiled by Miss Minnie Bronson, formerly special agent of the United States Department of Labor.] But it is obviously unfair to base the percentage of divorce upon the whole population, for in the Western States there has been a great influx of unmarried men and vomen. A fairer basis is to rank the States on the number of divorces in every 100,000 of the married population, and the following table gives this: Divorces per 100,000 married population: | Divorce per 100,000 married population— Washington. Montana.. Colorado. Arkansas. Texas. Oregon. Wyoming.. Indiana. Idaho. Oklahoma. Arizona. Indian Territory. 513 Continued. It will be seen that the Woman Suffrage States are not behind in these records. I would like to place in the record the statistics that have been obtained in regard to prohibition States. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. CARLIN. Have you the rate of taxation for Kansas? Mr. CARTER. Yes. Mr. CARLIN. What is that? Mr. CARTER. It is $1.02 per $100, or $10.20 per $1,000. Mr. CARLIN. You say it is $1.02 per $100, or $10.20 per $1,000? Mr. CARTER. Yes. The rate in Kansas is low, and the census bulletin states that it shows a reduction because of the change in the method of assessment. I have not been able to get it exactly. That is, I have not been able to ascertain exactly what change was made. Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma owe nearly three-fourths of the divorces in those States to negro population, according to the census reports. The negro population runs from 20 per cent in Oklahoma to 26.7 per cent in Texas, but the divorces form 53.7 per cent of all divorces granted. Divorce States. Divorce could be obtained in both these States by a residence of six months. * Mormon State, three-fourths of the population in which divorce is practically prohibited by the church The CHAIRMAN. They got prohibition out there in Kansas long before women began to vote out there, did they not? Mr. CARTER. Yes. Mr. THOMAS. Have they, as a matter of fact, ever gotten prohibition in Kansas? Mr. TAGGART. Oh, yes; they have prohibition out there. We have prohibition. The CHAIRMAN. Down in North Carolina there are 95 per cent of the women who do not want to vote. They are perfectly satisfied with the moral progress men have made for them. Mr. CARTER. Where is that? The CHAIRMAN. North Carolina. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Is there any liquor down there? The CHAIRMAN. No; you can not buy any there and you can not import any. You can not import a pint into North Carolina. Mr. NELSON. What is the old proverb? What did the governor of North Carolina say to the governor of South Carolina? [Laughter.] Mr. WILLIAMS. He said, "It is a long time between drinks." Mr. TAGGART. Mr. Carter, are you presenting those figures for the purpose of exciting us or getting us worried about increased taxation! Mr. CARTER. No. Mr. TAGGART. Don't worry. Of all the States in the Union, the one best able to pay taxes has woman suffrage. Women have voted just once in Kansas, and I do not know that the rate has been raised since they voted, but they are getting along very well and working along just splendidly. Sometimes they worry about Brooklyn, but it is only a passing whim. Mr. WILLIAMS. About what? Mr. TAGGART. About Brooklyn. They have heard of Brooklyn. Mr. CARTER. A similar instance of a congested community, showing the ineffectiveness of women's votes to better conditions is found in San Francisco. According to the New Republic for May 1, 1915, at the election in November, 1914, the San Francisco vote showed that State prohibition, the eight-hour law, the abatement of houses of prostitution, and the abolition of prize fighting were all defeated by big majorities. Although some of those things obtain in California, the congested communities come under the influence of the political machine, and apparently were against those betterments. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Wasn't that due largely to the exigencies of a world's fair. Wouldn't it be fair to take that into consideration? Mr. CARTER. It may be so. Mr. VOLSTEAD. I have known saloons to stay open all night and Sundays on occasions of that kind. Mr. CARTER. That was in 1914? Mr. CARTER. In the campaign in New York State there have been various kinds of documents circulated by the suffragists. I should like to read a few statements from some of them and show the sex antagonism and show the lack of study of the laws which they exhibit in these documents. They apparently have no conception of the spirit of the laws as carried out by men. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may put them in. right into the record. Read them Mr. CARTER. These statements appeared on a suffrage handbill entitled "Special privileges of men in New York State": Men have the right to vote-a right that is worth all other rights and privileges put together, inasmuch as it is the safeguard of all liberty and rights. Women have not that right. Gentlemen, the right to vote is a penalized responsibility. Men have this right as the natural result of their organization of the government for the protection of life, liberty, and property; for the protection of their homes, their wives, and their children; for the protection of women as well as men. They claim that men have the privilege of controlling the expenditure of the taxes they pay, and women have not. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Do you mean to say that the right to vote is a natural right? You seem to make that contention for men. How are you going to argue that it is a natural right for men and an unnatural right for women? Mr. CARTER. I do not mean to say that, but, as a matter of course from the organization of the Government, it naturally devolved upon men to carry out the mandates of society. Mr. VOLSTEAD. As long as the Government rested on force, as it did originally, that naturally was the situation. Mr. CARTER. You gentlemen will notice that the statement which I have read claimed that men have the privilege of controlling the expenditure of taxes which they pay, while women have not. In New York State a woman may vote in towns to raise money by taxation; she is entitled to vote on the incorporation of a town when she has owned property on the last assessment roll; her property rights in the State are the same as a man's; her civil rights in regard to property are the same. Mr. NELSON. Having the right to vote on these things, if you extended the right to vote, why would that be harmful and injurious? Mr. CARTER. We feel it is unnatural and harmful. Mr. DANFORTH. Why is it do dangerous to let her rights be extended? Mr. CARTER. It is dangerous to extend her rights because you are subjecting her to decisions and responsibilities of government and the enforcement of the law for which physically she is inferior and incapable. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Do you suppose they admit that? Mr. CARTER. I do not suppose so; no, sir. Mr. GARD. Do you favor woman suffrage for school control? Mr. CARTER. That is also permissible in New York State. Women may vote there in school matters. Mr. GARD. Do you favor that; does your organization? Mr. CARTER. That is a question that is beyond our control now. That has not come up for discussion. We accept that as an existing condition. Mr. GARD. Do you favor that? Mr. CARTER. We can not help that. It is a matter of existing conditions which we have to face. Mr. GARD. Having the power to vote in school matters, what would be the objection to her voting upon other questions? Mr. CARTER. The point is that in voting upon school questions the women are not called upon to exercise physical force in the enforcement of law and order. It is a question of discretion in the bringing up and training of their own children. Mr. TAGGART. Well, there is the police force. Women would not necessarily have to go on the police force any more than a small man would go on the police force. Have you any criticism to make of the enforcement of law by the police force or do you want every man to be a policeman? Mr. CARTER. I am not here to find fault with the conditions which exist. Mr. TAGGART. You are ready to allow any male to come to the polls and vote who is over 21 years of age regardless of his physical qualifications and then allow him to depend upon the more ablebodied men to enforce the laws and fight the battles? of Mr. CARTER. I do not feel, sir, that I am here for the purpose criticising the conditions that exist or for the purpose of passing judgment upon the male electorate as it exists. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Do you think any great harm has been done in New York because women have voted on school matters? Mr. CARTER. No, sir; I do not think they have done any harm in voting on school matters. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Supposing they were permitted to vote in the city or municipality upon municipal affairs, could any great harm come from that? Where do you draw the line? Mr. CARTER. The objection we would make would be the basis of force physical force. Mr. VOLSTEAD. Is it not absolutely foolish to use that old argument? Excuse me, Mr. Carter. I do not intend any offense. The point is, we employ soldiers and policemen to use force. Voting does not require force, but honesty, intelligence, judgment, and patriotism. All who possess these qualifications and have interests to protect may properly ask leave to vote. Is it not a fact that women suffer as much as the men in every war? Why should they be denied a voice in voting on the question of war? Mr. CARTER. Yes; but it hardly seems to me that the women, as a sex, can judge when the men are able to defend themselves. Mr. VOLSTEAD. But you are going to allow the men to determine that the women are in a proper condition to suffer? Mr. CARTER. All the exigencies which would demand war would involve a consideration of womankind, for whom man is ready to pay his life. The CHAIRMAN. This gentleman has told the committee that he had some facts which he would like to get into the record. I do not object to you gentlemen asking him questions, but he has now consumed considerably more time than he was allowed. This has been largely on account of the questions that have been asked him. If the gentlemen have no further questions, we will let Mr. Carter proceed to give us his facts. Mr. WILLIAMS. Can he not put those facts in at any time, Mr. Chairman, by inserting them in the record? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; he can put them in any time, anywhere. He has that privilege. Mr. CARTER. There were various other statements that were circulated by a prosuffrage association in New York, some of which I shall insert in the record. The suffragists claimed that men are practically exempt from for the social evil, that "under the execution of the law the woman is considered the only culprit— men go free." This is false. New York has an injunction and abatement act and a white slave law, and the law applies to both men and women with equal intent. It is commonly recognized that women are often treated with greater leniency in the courts. They have claimed that men are eligible to all civil-service examinations while women are not, but inquiries from the secretary of the State or city civil-service commissions would tell them that there are many positions for which women alone are eligible, not only because of their sex, but because of their peculiar aptitude. They have distorted the domestic relations law and the decedent estate law in their publications without an understanding or knowledge of them. The laws of New York favor and protect women, and the intent and actual workings of the courts show an endeavor to care for the interests of women and children. They would rue the day when they obtained "equal rights" with men, to find that these safeguards which have grown from a progressive civilization would be foregone with the advent of these so-called equal rights. It is this unjust attack upon the work of the men who believe in womanhood and have earnestly striven for the best interests that has aroused a sentiment against the spirit of the feminist. It is from this spirit of antagonism to law and order that the women of our State as well as the men would like to be free. Mr. CARTER. One of the objections which we have to the passage of any bill looking to the enfranchisement of women is that, while no good, as we see it, will be established, the expenses of elections will be approximately doubled by having woman suffrage. Mr. DANFORTH. Is there any objection made now to the expenses of elections? Isn't it generally the practice throughout the country to spend all the money we can get hold of at election time? Mr. CARTER. I suppose so, but, at the same time it is well to consider that point. Mr. DANFORTH. The people do not consider the cost-the expense of elections as long as the people are enabled to give expression to their views at the polls. Mr. CARTER. I merely give that as an item that enters into the total. Mr. DANFORTH. The expense in connection with elections seems to be objectionable. Nothing, however, has been suggested heretofore in regard to men's voting that it was inadvisable to allow men to vote because of the expense incurred. Mr. CARTER. I quote from a statement from the Los Angeles Times, which was quoted in the New York Times of October 12, 1915, in which is was said: California adopted woman suffrage in 1911. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1911, the State expenditures were $18,691,877. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1915, they were $36,529,993. A part of this increase was accounted for by highway bonds. According to the Los Angeles Times, at least $10,000,000 is political plunder. In 1911 the direct taxes for county purposes were $31,188,120. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1914, they were $42,293,021. The cost of county government in California is about five times the average cost of county government in other American States. Comparative figures compiled by the United States Census Bureau show that the per capita tax paid by a Californian for county government in one year would pay his county government tax in Vermont for 241 years * * * Twenty-five new departments and commissions, costing some $2,500,000 a year have been established. * * *Ten million dollars of increased State taxes; $11,000,000 of increased county taxes. |