Volume 5 — CHAPTER XV. (continued 2)
Reading edition
Mrs. Oliphant was held up because after saying that the women did not want the suffrage she argued against a Federal Amendment because if the women got it it would be very difficult to repeal it. Mr. Graham (Penn.) rushed to her relief by saying: "The line of thought is that 20 States, holding a minority of the population of the United States might pass this National Amendment over the protest of the larger States with the greater population." His attention was called by one of the committee to the fact that it would require 36 States. Mrs. Wells kept reminding the committee that she was an inexperienced speaker and knew nothing about politics but said: "I am a Catholic and a Democrat. I claim no knowledge of northern women but I cannot understand how southern women—I speak for them—can so far forget the memory of Thomas Jefferson and State's rights as to insist on having a minority of men in Congress pass this constitutional amendment against our desire." She was reminded that it required two-thirds of each House. She then told of opposing a suffrage resolution in the Texas Legislature some years before but neglected to tell of opposing one for prohibition also. Asked if women did not vote at school elections in Texas she answered: "I do not know because I know nothing about politics."
Miss Price was a shrewd speaker and guarded her position but before she had finished the members of the committee themselves were making speeches for or against woman suffrage. The speech of Mrs. George of Massachusetts with its statistics filled fifteen closely printed pages of the stenographic report. It was an argument for State's rights which would have done credit to the most extreme southerner and she protected her defenses against the volley of questions that were kept up until time for the committee to adjourn.
The anti-suffragists had wisely refrained this year from bringing any of their male advocates but the latter did not intend to be left out and they obtained a hearing six weeks later on February 1. Franklin Carter, secretary of the Man Suffrage Association of New York City, told the committee he could "get through in half an hour," which was granted. He consumed over an hour, the official report showing that after the first few sentences there were not more than three or four without an interruption from the committee and the "heckling" continued through seventeen interesting printed pages. Mr. Carter, who said he received a salary of $100 a month and had expended between $6,000 and $7,000 during the recent New York amendment campaign, was at last obliged to submit what he had to say in the form of a "brief," which filled six closely printed pages. He was followed by Paul Littlefield representing the Men's Campaign Committee of the Pennsylvania Women's Anti-Suffrage Association. His experience was more disconcerting than that of Mr. Carter, who had freely stated the expenditures of his association and his own salary while Mr. Littlefield refused any information on these and other points. He brought a message from Mrs. Horace Brock, president of the association, saying: "The women of our State trust the men to legislate wisely and justly for them, and the ideas of chivalry which have existed for a thousand years are the great bulwark surrounding and protecting women, upon which, because of their lack of physical strength, they must rely for safety and happiness." His grilling filled twelve printed pages of the report. Mr. Stone asked permission to get a "brief" from the chairman of the Massachusetts Man Suffrage Association, Robert Turner, which would clear up many matters. His own recollection was that the expenditures of that association in the 1915 campaign were $54,000. Mr. Littlefield then relented and said that the Pennsylvania men's committee spent $20,000 on the campaign. Mr. Turner's "brief" of 5,000 words was afterwards submitted but did not mention expenditures.