Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 5.djvu/446

acter. Space can be given for only enough of Mrs. McCormick’s exceedingly clever presentation of this proposed amendment to make the matter fully understood.

I assumed the responsibility as chairman early in January, 1914, and after opening our headquarters in the Munsey Building at Washington, D. C., divided the committee’s work into three departments—Lobby, Publicity and Organization. The lobby and publicity were continued from the Washington office and an organization office was opened in Chicago during the latter part of January, as it was decided that Chicago was much better situated geographically to carry on the program of this department.

As Congress was in session it was necessary for us to concentrate our attention on our lobby at the Capitol and to determine as quickly as possible both our policy to be adopted and the wisest method of legislative procedure. In order to facilitate this work Mrs. Booth and I joined Mrs. Funk in Washington, and, dividing our duties, we proceeded to investigate the temper of Congress. What was known in the present Congress as the Bristow-Mondell resolution had been reported out favorably by the Standing Committee on Suffrage in the Senate and, if we desired, could be placed as unfinished business on the calendar, which would result in a discussion terminating in a vote.

The situation in the House of Representatives was not so favorable. It has no suffrage committee and the Mondell amendment was in the Judiciary. As that committee was composed of men if not actually opposed at least indifferent there did not seem to be any immediate chance of action. We discovered very soon, however, that the Congressional Union was circulating a petition among the Democrats requesting them to caucus on the subject of establishing a Suffrage Standing Committee. The members of your Congressional Committee felt this to be a great mistake. It gave the Democratic party a splendid opportunity to commit themselves as opposed to woman suffrage, using their State’s rights doctrine as a reason for their action. We discussed it with the members of the Congressional Union, who were convinced they were right in putting the Democratic party on record for or against suffrage, and it developed during our discussion that their policy of holding this party responsible, as the party in power, was to be put into action at once and announced as soon as the Democrats had voted in caucus. Knowing that this policy was diametrically opposed to that of the National Association, which has always been non-partisan—to hold the individual and not the party responsible—we tried desperately hard to block the petition and avoid the Democratic caucus at that time, but as the Congressional Union had a lobby of forty women against our three, it was impossible for us to head it off. The party caucused and not only voted against a Standing Committee on Suffrage but Mr. Heflin of Alabama amended the resolution before the caucus so that the members were enabled to vote on February 3 by 123 to