J. Henri Fabre - "More Hunting Wasps"

Lady Fanshawe - "Memoirs of Lady Fanshawe"

Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne - "Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, v6"

Arthur M. Winfield - "The Rover Boys on the Great Lakes"

New Philadelphia Book Publisher Highlights Local Talent
Book and Publishing News from Publishers Newswire(tm)

Looking for Child to be on Cover of a New Book, 'The Model Child'
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. -- The Philadelphia literary world will celebrate the launch of two new players today, April 10th: Kay Square Press, a new publishing company focused on Philadelphia-area artists, their stories, and their art; and Kay Square's first release, 'With the Rich and Mighty: Emlen Etting of Philadelphia' (ISBN: 978-0-9815129-0-7), a critical biography by Kenneth C. Kaleta.

FlatSigned Press Alleges Don Imus Remarks Damage Legacy of President Gerald R. Ford
NEW YORK, N.Y. -- Nathan Yungerberg, an accomplished model scout and professional child photographer is launching a nation-wide casting call to find the cover model for his highly anticipated book release, 'The Model Child: A Parents Guide to the Child Modeling Industry' (ISBN: 978-0-9817018-0-6).

Books: Jailed for Freedom

D >> Doris Stevens >> Jailed for Freedom




{30}

party, but he demanded action which his party had specifically
declared against.

It was necessary to appeal again to the nation. We called for
demonstrations. of public approval of the amendment in every
state on May 2. Thousands of resolutions were passed calling for
action in Congress. These resolutions were made the center of
another great demonstration in Washington, May 9, when thousands
of women in, procession carried them to the Capitol where
beautiful and impressive ceremonies were held on the Capitol
steps. The resolutions were formally received by members of
Congress and the demonstration ended dramatically with a great
chorus of women massed on the steps singing "The March of the
Women" to the thousands of spectators packed closely together on
the Capitol grounds.

And still the President withheld his support.

Under our auspices five hundred representative club women of the
country waited upon him in another appeal for help.[1] To them he
explained his "passion for local self-government," which led to
his conviction "that this is a matter for settlement by the
states[2] and not by the federal government . . . ."

Women had to face the fact that the 63rd Congress had made a
distinctly hostile record on suffrage. The President, as leader
of his party, had seven times refused all aid; the Democratic
Party had recorded its opposition through an adverse vote in the
Senate and a caucus vote in the House forbidding even
consideration of the measure.

It became clear that some form of political action would have to
be adopted which would act as an accelerator to the
Administration. This feeling was growing momentarily among many
women, but it was conspicuously strong in the mind of Mrs. Oliver
H. P. Belmont, recognized as one of the ablest

[1]7th deputation to the President, June 30, 1914.

[2]This amounted to virtual opposition because of the great
difficulties, (some of them almost insuperable) involved in
amending many state constitutions.

{31}

suffrage leaders in the country. Anticipating the unfriendly
record made by the Democrats in the 63rd Congress, Mrs. Belmont
had come to Miss Paul and to her vice-chairman, Miss Lucy Burns,
to urge the formulation of a plan whereby we could strike at
Administration opposition through the women voters of the West.
Miss Paul had the same idea and welcomed the support of this plan
by so able a leader.

Mrs. Belmont was impatient to do nationally what she had already
inaugurated in New York State suffrage work-make suffrage an
election issue. She was the first suffragist in America to be
"militant" enough to wage a campaign against office-seekers on
the issue of woman suffrage. She was roundly denounced by the
opposition press, but she held her ground. It is interesting to
record that she defeated the first candidate for the New York
Assembly ever campaigned against on this issue.

She had associated herself with the Pankhursts in England and was
the first suffrage leader here publicly to commend the tactics of
the English militants. Through her, Mrs. Pankhurst made her first
visits to America, where she found a sympathetic audience. Even
among the people who understood and believed in English tactics,
the general idea here was that only in the backward country of
England was "militancy" necessary. In America, men would give
women what women wanted without a struggle.

Mrs. Belmont was the one suffrage leader who foresaw a militant
battle here whenever women should determine to ask for their
freedom immediately. In a great measure she prepared the way for
that battle.

Since the movement had not even advanced to the stage of
political action at that time, however, Mrs. Belmont realized
that political action would have to be exhausted before
attempting more aggressive tactics. Not knowing whether Miss Paul
had contemplated inaugurating political action in the

{32}

national field, she sought out the new leader and urged her to
begin at, once to organize the women's power for use in the
approaching national elections.

Those interested in the woman's movement are fairly familiar with
Mrs. Belmont's early state suffrage work and her work with the
militants in England, but they do not know as much about her
national work. It is not easy for a woman of vast wealth to be
credited with much else in America than the fact of generosity in
giving money to the cause in which she believes. Wealth dazzles
us and we look no further. Mrs. Belmont has given hundreds of
thousands of dollars to suffrage, both state and national, but
she has given greater gifts in her militant spirit, her political
sagacity and a marked tactical sense. She was practically the
only leader formerly associated with the conservative forces who
had the courage to extricate herself from the old routine
propaganda and adventure into new paths. She always approached
the struggle for liberty in a wholesome revolutionary mood. She
was essentially a leader, and one who believed in action-always
action.

Until the movement in America regained its militant spirit, her
heart was primarily with the English women, because she thought
their fight so magnificent that it would bring suffrage to women
in England sooner than our slow-going methods would bring it to
us. In 1910, when English militancy was at its height, Mrs.
Belmont gave out an interview in London, in which she predicted
that English women would have the suffrage before us. She even
went so far as to say that we in America would have to create an
acute situation here, probably a form of militancy, before we
could win. At the same time the President of the International
Suffrage Alliance said in London: "The suffrage movement in
England- resembles a battle. It is cruel and tragic. Ours in
America is an evolution-less dramatic, slow but more sure." Facts
sustained Mrs. Belmont's prophecy. Facts did not sustain the
other

{33}

prediction. English women got the vote in 1918. American women
were not enfranchised nationally until August, 1920.

The following is the political theory and program approved by
Mrs. Belmont and submitted to the Congressional Union, by its
chairman, Alice Paul, at a conference of the organization at the
home of Mrs. Belmont in Newport in August, 1914:

The dominant party (at that time the Democratic Party) is
responsible for all action and therefore for action on suffrage.

This party's action had been hostile to this measure.

The dominant party in the approaching election must be convinced,
and through it all other parties, that opposition to suffrage is
inexpedient.

All parties will be convinced when they see that their opposition
costs them votes.

Our fight is a political one.

We must appeal for support to the constituency which is most
friendly to suffrage, that constituency being the voting women.

An attempt must be made, no matter how small, to organize the
women's vote.

An appeal must be made to the women voters in the nine suffrage
states to withhold their support from the Democrats nationally,
until the national Democratic Party ceases to block the suffrage
amendment.

This is non-partisanship in the highest degree, as it calls upon
women to forego previous allegiance to a party. If they are
Democrats in this instance, ,they must vote against their party.
If the Republican Party were in power and pursued a similar
course, we would work against that party.

The party which sees votes falling away will change its attitude.

After we have once affected by this means the outcome of a
national election, even though slightly, every party will
hesitate to trifle with our measure any longer.

All candidates from suffrage states are professing suffragists,
and therefore we have nothing to lose by defeating a

{34}

member of the dominant party in those states. Another suffragist
will take his place.

Men will object to being opposed because of their party
responsibility in spite of their friendliness individually to
suffrage. But women certainly have a right to further through the
ballot their wishes on the suffrage question, as well as on other
questions like currency, tariff, and what not.

This can only be done by considering the Party record, for as the
individual record and individual pledges go, all candidates are
practically equal.

We, as a disfranchised class, consider our right to vote,
preeminently over any other issue in any party's program.

Political leaders will resent our injecting our issue into their
campaign, but the rank and file will be won when they see the
loyalty of women to women.

This policy will be called militant and in a sense it is, being
strong, positive and energetic.

If it is militant to appeal to women to use their vote to bring
suffrage to this country, then it is militant to appeal to men or
women to use their vote to any good end.

To the question of "How will we profit if another party comes
in?" our answer will be that adequate political chastisement of
one party for its bad suffrage record through a demonstration of
power by women voters affecting the result of the national
election, will make it easier to get action from any party in
power

Amidst tremendous enthusiasm this plan was accepted by the little
conference of women at Newport, and $7,000 pledged in a few
moments to start it. There was a small group of women, an
infinitely small budget with which to wage a campaign in nine
states, but here was also enthusiasm and resolute determination.

A tiny handful of women-never more than two, more often only one
to a state-journeyed forth from Washington into the nine suffrage
states of the West to put before the voting women this political
theory, and to ask them to support it.

{35}

Chapter 2

Women Voters Organize

It can't be done." "Women don't care about suffrage." I "Once
they've got it, it is a dead issue." "To talk of arousing the
Western women to protest against the Congressional candidates of
the National Democratic Party in the suffrage states, when every
one of them is a professing suffragist, is utter folly." So ran
the comment of the political wise acres in the autumn of 1914.

But the women had faith in their appeal.

It is impossible to give in a few words any adequate picture of
the anger of Democratic leaders at our entrance into the
campaign. Six weeks before election they woke up to find the
issue of national suffrage injected into a campaign which they
had meant should be no more stirring than an orderly and
perfunctory endorsement of the President's legislative program.

The campaign became a very hot one during which most of the
militancy seemed to be on the side of the political leaders.
Heavy fists came down on desks. Harsh words were spoken.
Violent threats were made. In Colorado, where I was cam-
paigning, I was invited politely but firmly by the Democratic
leader to leave the state the morning after I had arrived. "You
can do no good here. I would advise you to leave at once.
Besides, your plan is impracticable and the women will not
support it."

"Then why do you object to my being here?" I asked.

"You have no right to ask women to do this . . . ."

Some slight variation of this experience was met by every

{36}

woman who took part in this campaign. Of course, the Democratic
leaders did not welcome an issue raised unexpectedly, and one
which forced them to spend an endless amount of time apologizing
for and explaining the Democratic Party's record. Nor did they
relish spending more money publishing more literature, in short,
adding greatly to the burdens of their campaign. The candidates,
a little more suave than the party leaders, proved most
eloquently that they had been suffragists
"from birth." One candidate even claimed a suffrage inheritance
from his great-grandmother.

This first entry of women into a national election on the
suffrage amendment was little more than a quick, brilliant
dash. With all its sketchiness, however, it had immediate
political results, and when the election was over, there came
tardily a general public recognition that the Congressional
Union had made a real contribution to these results. In the
nine suffrage states women vote3 for 45 members of Congress.
For 43 of these seats the Democratic Party ran candidates.
We opposed in our campaign all of these candidates. Out of
the 43 Democratic candidates running, only 9.0 were elected.
While it was not our primary aim to defeat candidates it was
generally conceded that we had contributed to these defeats.

Our aim in this campaign was primarily to call to the attention
of the public the bad suffrage record of the Democratic Party.
The effect of our campaign was soon evident in Congress. The most
backward member realized for the first time that women had voted.
Even the President perceived that the movement had gained new
strength, though he was not yet politically moved by it. He was
still "tied to a conviction"[1] which he had had all his life
that suffrage "ought to be brought about state by state."

Enough strength and determination among women had

[1]Statement to Deputation of Democratic women (eighth
deputation) at the White House, Jan. 6, 1915.

{37}

been demonstrated to the Administration, however, to make them
want to do something "just as good" as the thing we asked. The
Shafroth-Palmer[1] Resolution was introduced, providing for a
constitutional amendment permitting a national initiative and
referendum on suffrage in the states, thereby forcing upon women
the very course we had sought to circumvent. This red herring
drawn across the path had been accepted by the conservative suff-
ragists evidently in a moment of hopelessness, and their strength
put behind it, but the politicians who persuade them to back it
knew that it was merely an attempt to evade the issue.

This made necessary a tremendous campaign throughout the country
by the Congressional Union, with the result that the compromise
measure was eventually abandoned. During its life, however,
politicians were happy in the opportunity to divide their support
between it and the original amendment, which was still pending.
To offset this danger and to show again in dramatic fashion the
strength and will of the women voters to act on this issue, we
made political work among the western women the principal effort
of the year 1915, the year preceding the presidential election.
Taking advantage of the Panama-Pacific Exposition in San
Francisco, we opened suffrage headquarters in the Palace of
Education on the exposition grounds. From there we called the
first Woman Voters' Convention ever held in the world for the
single purpose of attaching political strength to the movement.
Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont was chairman of the committee which signed
the convention call.

Women from all the voting states assembled in a mass convention
September 14, 15 and 16. There is not time to describe

[1]This resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senator
Shafroth of Colorado, Democrat; in the House by Representative A.
Mitchell Palmer of Pennsylvania, Democrat, later Attorney General
in President Wilson's Cabinet. Both men, although avowed
supporters of the original Susan B. Anthony amendment, backed
this evil compromise.

{38}

the beauty of the pageantry which surrounded that gathering, nor
of the emotional quality which was at high pitch throughout the
sessions. These women from the deserts of Arizona, from the farms
of Oregon, from the valleys of California, from the mountains of
Nevada and Utah, were in deadly earnest. They had answered the
call and they meant to stay in the fight until it was won. The
convention went on record unanimously for further political
action on behalf of national suffrage and for the original
amendment without compromise, and pledged itself to use all power
to this end without regard to the interests of any existing
political party.

Two emissaries, Sara Bard Field and Frances Joliffe, both of
California, were commissioned by women voters at the final
session, when more than ten thousand people were present, to go
to the President and Congress bearing these resolutions and
hundreds of thousands of signatures upon a petition gathered
during the summer. They would speak directly to the President
lest he should be inclined to take lightly the women voters'
resolutions.

The envoys, symbolic of the new strength that was to come out of
the West, made their journey across continent by automobile. They
created a sensation all along the way, received as they were by
governors, by mayors, by officials high and low, and by the
populace. Thousands more added their names to the petition and it
was rolled up to gigantic proportions until in December when
unrolled it literally stretched over miles as it was borne to the
Capitol with honor escorts.

The action of the convention scarcely cold, and the envoys mid-
way across the continent, the President hastened to New Jersey to
cast his vote for suffrage in a state referendum. He was careful
to state that he did so as a private citizen, "not as the leader
of my party in the nation" He repeated his position, putting the
emphasis upon his opposition to national suffrage, rather than on
his belief in suffrage for his state.

{39}

"I believe that it (suffrage) should be settled by the states and
not by the national government, and that in no circumstances
should it be made a party question; and my view has grown
stronger at every turn of the agitation." He knew women were
asking the powerful aid of the President of the United States,
not the aid of Mr. Wilson of Princeton, New Jersey. The state
amendment in New Jersey was certain to fail, as President Wilson
well knew. Casting a vote for it would help his case with women
voters, and still not bring suffrage in the East a step nearer.

The envoys' reception at the Capitol was indeed dramatic.
Thousands of women escorted them amid bands and banners to the
halls of Congress, where they were received by senators and
representatives and addressed with eloquent speeches. The envoys
replied by asking that their message be carried by friends of the
measure to the floor of the Senate and House, and this was done.

The envoys waited upon the President at the White House. This
visit of the representatives of women with power marked rather an
advance in the President's position. He listened with an eager
attention to the story of the new-found power and what women
meant to do with it. For the first time on record, he said he had
"an open mind" on the question of national suffrage, and would
confer with his party colleagues.

The Republican and Democratic National Committees heard the case
of the envoys. They were given a hearing before the Senate
Suffrage Committee and before the House Judiciary in one of the
most lively and entertaining inquisitions in which women ever
participated.

No more questions on mother and home! No swan song on the passing
of charm and womanly loveliness! Only agile scrambling by each
committee member to ask with eagerness and some heat, "Well, if
this amendment has not passed Congress by then, what will you do
in the elections of 1916?" It

{40}

was with difficulty that the women were allowed to tell their
story, so eager was the Committee to jump ahead to political
consequences. "Sirs, that depends upon what you gentlemen do. We
are asking a simple thing-" But they never got any further from
the main base of their interest.

"If President Wilson comes out for it and his party does
not" from a Republican member, "will you-"

"I object to introducing partisan discussions here," came
shamelessly from a Democratic colleague. And so the hearing
passed in something of a verbal riot, but with no doubt as to the
fact that Congressmen were alarmed by the prospect of women
voting as a protest group.

The new year found the Senate promptly reporting the measure
favorably again, but the Judiciary Committee footballed it to its
sub-committee, back to the whole committee, postponed it, marked
time, dodged defeated it.

The problem of neutrality toward the European war was agitating
the minds of political leaders. Nothing like suffrage for women
must be allowed to rock the ship even slightly! Oh, no, indeed;
it was men's business to keep the nation out of war. Men never
had shown marked skill at keeping nations out of war in the
history of the world. But never mind! Logic must not be pressed
too hard upon the "reasoning" sex. This time, men would do it.

The exciting national election contest was approaching. Party
conventions were scheduled to meet in June while the amendment
languished at the Capitol. It was clear that more highly
organized woman-power would have to be called into action before
the national government would speed its pace. To the women voters
the Eastern women went for decisive assistance. A car known as
the "Suffrage Special," carrying distinguished Eastern women and
gifted speakers, made an

{41}

extensive tour of the West and under the banner of the
Congressional Union called again upon the women voters to come to
Chicago on June 5th to form a new party,-The Woman's Party[1]-to
serve as long as should be necessary as the balance of power in
national contests, and thus to force action from the old parties.

The instant response which met this appeal surpassed the most
optimistic hopes. Thousands of women assembled in Chicago for
this convention, which became epoch-making not only in .the
suffrage fight but in the whole woman movement. For the first
time in history, women came together to organize their political
power into a party to free their own sex. For the first time in
history representatives of men's political parties came to plead
before these women voters for the support of their respective
parties.

The Republican Party sent as its representatives John Hays
Hammond and C. S. Osborn, formerly Governor of Michigan. The
Democrats sent their most persuasive orator, President Wilson's
friend, Dudley Field Malone, Collector of the Port of New York.
Allan Benson, candidate for the Presidency on the Socialist
ticket, represented the Socialist Party. Edward Polling,
Prohibition leader, spoke for the Prohibition Party, arid Victor
Murdock and Gifford Pinchot for The Progressive Party.

All laid their claims for suffrage support before the women with
the result that the convention resolved itself into another
political party-The Woman's Party. A new party with but one
plank-the immediate passage of the federal suffrage amendment-a
party determined to withhold its support from all existing
parties until women were politically free, and to punish
politically any party in power which did not use its

[1]The Woman's Party started with a membership of all
Congressional Union members in suffrage states. Anne Martin of
Nevada was elected chairman.

{42}

power to free women; a party which became a potent factor of
protest in the following national election.

This first step towards the solidarity of women quickly brought
results. The Republican National Convention, meeting immediately.
after the Woman's Party Convention, and the Democratic National
Convention the week following, both included suffrage planks in
their national platforms for the first time in history. To be
sure, they were planks that failed to satisfy us. But the mere
hint of organized political action on suffrage had moved the two
dominant parties to advance a step. The new Woman's Party had
declared suffrage a national political issue. The two major
parties acknowledged the issue by writing it into their party
platforms.

The Republican platform was vague and indefinite on national
suffrage. The Democratic Party made its suffrage plank specific
against action by Congress. It precisely said, "We recommend the
extension of the franchise to the women of the country by the
states upon the same terms as men." It was openly stated at the
Democratic Convention by leading Administration Democrats that
the President himself had written this suffrage plank. If the
Republicans could afford to write a vague and indefinite plank,
the President and his party could not. They as the party in power
had been under fire and were forced to take sides. They did so.
The President chose the plank and his subordinates followed his
lead. It may be remarked in passing that this declaration so
solidified the opposition within the President's party that when
the President ultimately sought to repudiate it, he met stubborn
resistance.

Protected by the President's plank, the Democratic Congress
continued to block national suffrage. It would not permit it even
to be reported from the Judiciary Committee. The party platform
was written. The President, too, found it easy to hide behind the
plank which he had himself written,

{43}

counting on women to be satisfied. To Mrs. D. E. Hooker of
Richmond, Virginia, who as a delegate from the Virginia
Federation of Labor, representing 60,000 members, went to him
soon after to ask his support of the amendment, the President
said, "I am opposed by conviction and political traditions to
federal action on this question. Moreover, after the plank which
was adopted in the Democratic platform at St. Louis, I could not
comply with the request contained in this resolution even if I
wished to do so."