Latest / Woman Suffrage and Politics / 34 - Woman Suffrage and Politics by Carrie Chapman Catt, Nettie Rogers Shuler

Transcript

34 - Woman Suffrage and Politics by Carrie Chapman Catt, Nettie Rogers Shuler · Woman Suffrage and Politics

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Chapter twenty nine of Women's Suffrage in Politics. This is
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Women's Suffrage in Politics, The Inner Story of the Suffrage
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Movement by Carrie Chapman Catt and Neddie Rogers Schuler. The
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court speaks. Many eminent lawyers were convinced that even
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: should the Federal Supreme Court declare referenda on federal amendments
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: in general invalid, such decision would not apply to the
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: state of Ohio, whose voters had amended the state constitution,
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: especially providing for referenda after ratification of all federal constitutional amendments.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: It was held that a decision declaring a referendum in
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Ohio unconstitutional would apply to all other states, but that
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: the reverse would not be true, a viewpoint that lent
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: additional interests and significance to the Ohio case. The Ohio
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court had ended down its opinion on September thirtieth,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: nineteen nineteen, that a referendum on the ratification of the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: Prohibition Amendment was valid, Although an appeal was promptly taken
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: to the Federal Supreme Court. The Dries of the state
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: recognized that there was no time to secure an opinion
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: before the November election, and therefore proceeded to wage a
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: campaign of preparation for the election contest. After they had
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: lost by less than five hundred votes, they called for
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: a recount, and opinion among their forces seems to have
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: been divided as to whether to expand the time and
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: money necessary to secure a statewide recount, or to wait
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: for the Federal Supreme Court decision, which they believed would
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: declare the referendum void. It was not generally believed, however,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: that this appeal of the Ohio Dries was going to
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: bring the much anticipated federal decision, because the election it
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: was supposed to prevent had already taken place, and whatever
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: damage the Ohio taxpayer who brought the suit might say
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: sufferer on account of an unnecessary election, had already been suffered,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: and the decision could give him no redress. When the
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: petitions were filed for a referendum on ratification of the
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: suffrage Amendment, George S. Hawk of Cincinnati, the man who
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: had taken similar action in behalf of the Prohibition amendment,
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: filed a motion in the Court of Common Pleas Franklin
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: County to enjoin the Secretary of State from putting the
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: question on the ballot. By agreement, he secured prompt action
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: in the minor court, so that the case had passed
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: through to the Supreme Court in the record breaking time
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: of one month. On November eleventh, nineteen nineteen, that Court
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: announced its opinion as upholding the Franklin County courts and
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: refusing to enjoin the Secretary of State. Mister Hawk promptly
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the Nation.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: Although there were a bewildering number of cases, much advertised
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: as on their way to the Supreme Court, and although
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: all the appeals from the rsferenda decisions of the Supreme
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Courts were supposed to be on the calendar of the
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Federal Court, the facts were that when the Supreme Court
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: took recess on November twenty first, nineteen nineteen, the only
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: cases involving the referenda which were actually on the Federal
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: calendar were the two hot cases from Ohio. The one
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: prohibition was regarded as mooted, the other suffrage as premature.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Since in the eyes of the law, the suffrage Amendment
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: had not been ratified and might never be. Meanwhile, the
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: presidents of the National American Women's Suffrage Association and the
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: Ohio Auxiliary of the Association held a conference with mister
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Hawk in Cleveland on December ninth, nineteen nineteen. Mister Hawk
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: was a young attorney connected with a group of the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: Prohibition Party wing of the Prohibition movement which never come
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: into unison with the Anti Saloon League, the organization that
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: was in control of the main campaign in Ohio and
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: in the nation. Attempted to enjoin the Secretary of State
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: on the Prohibition amendment case without the consent or knowledge
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: of the Anti Saloon League, as he had attempted to
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: enjoin the Suffrag's case without the consent or knowledge of
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: any suffrage association. He had allowed the National Anti Saloon
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: League to join with him in the argument on the
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: referendum of the Prohibition ratification before the State Supreme Court,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: but he had done so through courtesy, not choice. When
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: asked why, without consultation with the suffrage leaders of Ohio,
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: he had challenged the anti suffrage petitions, he replied that
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: the Prohibition case, which he had appealed in the Federal
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court was weak since the election had taken place,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: and he wished to strengthen it. He was not, however,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: averse to taking the National American Women's Suffrage Association into
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: partnership on his undertaking, and an agreement was made that
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: this would be done, provided the Council of the Association
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: so advised. The Honorable Charles E. Hughes had been engaged
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: as the association's council, and no more able constitutional lawyer
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: had the country produced. Mister Hughes, mister Wayne Wheeler, the
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: Chief of Council for the National Anti Saloon League, and
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: the Federal Department of Justice all advised that the Hawk
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: case stood small chance of bringing forth the much coveted decision,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: but that that decision would come soon on some one
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: of the numerous and seemingly far more important cases. Mister
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: Hawk was therefore informed that the tentative agreement would not
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: be carried out. Mister Hawk had neither money of his
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: own nor many supporters who could provide the costs of
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: the appeal to the Supreme Court, but he had faith
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: in his case, and the most valuable of American traits sticktuitiveness.
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: He took the matter up with Frank J. Hainley, one
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: time Governor of Indiana and for some years the fearless
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: advocate of prohibition. He too had not yielded the press
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: each of the Prohibition Party leadership to the Anti Saloon League.
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: A small group had established the Flying Squadron Foundation, which
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: played an independent part in the Prohibition drama. Mister Hayley
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: was an able lawyer, and to him mister Hawk, young
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: unknown made his appeal. There was no money to reward him,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: perhaps none for printing, unless it could be gathered from friends,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: an always difficult task, made more difficult by the fact
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: that all the nation knew that the decision must soon
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: be forthcoming anyway from one of the many cases coming
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: up from other states. Yet mister Hawk persuaded mister Hayley
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: to join him, and on February seventh, nineteen twenty, their
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: briefs were filed with the Court. On February twenty fifth,
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: reply briefs were filed with Attorney General Price of Ohio
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: as council, and on June second, nineteen twenty, to the
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: amazement of all the most interested lookers on the Supreme
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: Court selected the hot cases upon which to send their
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: waiting nation. The great decision, long expected and crucial. The
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: decision was that there could be no state referenda on
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: federal amendments. The entire question was involved in a single query,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: what is the legislature? Is it a small legislative body
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: elected by the people, or may the legislative function be
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: extended to the people themselves as the Initiative and Referendum
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Act extended it. The briefs on the Kentucky Distillers, the
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: Warehouse Company, the liquor Dealers of New Jersey and later
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: the State of New Jersey, the state of Rhode Island,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: and the appeals from state Supreme Court decisions now wet
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: now dry, had all expanded much time and space on
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: the referendum proposition. Charles E. Hughes On behalf of the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: twenty two states Rhode Island, Delaware, North Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Indiana, Alabama, Maine, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Oregon, Kansas,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Wyoming, Utah,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: and Arizona, which, as Amicis curii, filed briefs on the
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Rhode Island case summed up the whole matter in a
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: masterly fashion. The chief points of argument for the right
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: of referendum on the federal amendments were one, the initiative
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: and referendum was unknown when the Constitution was written, but
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: it is the establishment of an enlarged legislature created by
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: the will of the people. Two. In the words of
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Attorney General Price of Ohio, the voters of the states
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: have the power to abolish their general assemblies and to
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: take into their own hands all matters of legislation. Such
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: authority as the legislatures have to ratify amendments to the
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: Federal Constitution is not mandatory but permissive. The State of
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: Ohio did take from the legislature some of its authority
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: invested with the people when it established the initiative and referendum.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: The chief points in argument against the right of referendum
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: on federal amendments were one, the Federal Constitution is the
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: supreme law of the land and supersedes all state constitutions
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: in state statutory laws in authority. Two, the Federal Constitution
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: clearly indicates the method of its own amendment, and this
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: provides that the amendment must first be submitted by a
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: two thirds vote of the two houses of Congress, and
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: then must be ratified by the legislatures of three fourths
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: of the states. Three. A vast amount of evidence has
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: been gathered to show that the Federal Constitution clearly indicates
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the elected body known as legislatures when it said legislatures.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: The discussion which resulted in the adoption of the Federal
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Constitution made that point quite clear. Four. While the states
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: have full authority to change their own constitution and laws
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: in any manner they choose without consulting the federal government,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: they have no power to change the meaning of the
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: Federal Constitution. And since the Federal Constitution has never been
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: amended so as to give authority to any state to
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: choose a different method of ratification of a federal amendment
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: than that prescribed by the Constitution itself, the interpretation of
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the meaning of the words legislature today is precisely the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: same as that in existence when the Constitution was written. Five.
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: In the opinion rendered by the U. S. District Court
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: of New Jersey is the following. In Article five, two
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: methods are authorized for the ratification of amendments, one by
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: convention and the other by legislatures. If the method by
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: convention had been chosen, would the ratifying action by the
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: convention have been sub to the referendum vote by the
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: people manifestly not if the express language of the Constitution
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: is conclusive? And if not, where is the warrant for
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: holding that ratification by the legislatures requires such a referendum vote.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: Six To those who hold that the initiative and referendum
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: laws may be held as having control over the Federal Constitution,
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: The question is directed as to whether the people of
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: any state could initiate a federal amendment by common consent.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: It is agreed that this was not within the intent
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: of the law. If one part of the law fails
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: an application to federal matters, how can the other be
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: held to be applicable? The Federal Constitution, and not the
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: constitutions of the several states, controls the method by which
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the U s Constitution may be amended. The decision was
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: announced in glaring headlines from Ocean to Ocean, and followed
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: by editorial comment by all the leading newspapers of the country.
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: Mister Hainley's own newspaper, The National In quiet error, Indianapolis
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: said the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken,
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: and in its words were double charged, charged with life
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: and death life for the two great amendments to the
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Federal Constitution, the eighteenth the Prohibition Amendment, and the nineteenth
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: the Woman's Suffrage Amendment, and the death to every state
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: referendum endeavor legislative or constitutional, having for its purpose the
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: change of the method of amendment of the Constitution, or
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: the placing of limitation upon the ratifying power of state legislature.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: In the judgment it has rendered the two cases of
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: George S. Hawk versus Harvey C. Smith, Secretary of State
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: of Ohio, it has written finis upon the grave of
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: the hopes of the wet interests, so far as they
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: were based on the state referendums of legislative ratification of
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: either of these amendments. The decision is of vast importance
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: not only because of its conclusiveness as to these amendments,
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: but as to other future amendments which may be submitted,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: and because of its reiteration of the supremacy of the
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: National Covenant. The decision blasts the most substantial hope the
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: what interests had the cases were defended by the great
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: array of able counsel, especially employed by the liquor interests
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: and the little Gaition, contested with stubborn determination and by
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the exercise of every resource and skill of learning and
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: experience they possessed. Eminent counsel had advised that no decision
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: could be had on the merits of the cases for
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: lack of jurisdictional facts. The law officers of the government,
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: when invited to appear and assist in the presentation of
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: the cases, had declined to do so because of what,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: in their judgment, was lack of jurisdiction. All in all,
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: it is a signal victory for mister Hawk, the plaintiff,
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: and error for counsel, for the causes whose fate was
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: so intimately involved, for the American people, and for their
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: unborn posterity. At last, the threatened referenda on the suffrage
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: Amendment were no longer legally possible. Maine had not filed petitions,
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: as its own state court had declared them illegal. The
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: petition in Massachusetts was thrown out because of insufficiency in
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: number of names. Missouri let the time limit for filing
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: petitions pass, and it is uncertain whether they were ever circulated.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: In Texas, the primary law had been declared constitutional by
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, as had been the presidential suffrage law
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: in Nebraska. With ratification completed, the referenda filed on presidential
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: suffrage in Ohio and Maine became futile, and even aside
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: from ratification, the Supreme Court of the Nation would without
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: doubt declare referenda on presidential suffrage unconstitutional, as the authority
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: for it was likewise drawn from the Federal Constitution. One
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: by one, the legal attacks fell away from the amendments
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: like barnacles from a sh in fresh water. The opponents
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: set forth more publicity in which they angrily warned the
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: nation that should another state ratify and the women be
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: thereby allowed to vote in the coming election, the entire
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: presidential election would have to be thrown out. Since they
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: were still prepared to invalidate the amendment, as the method
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: for doing so was not clearly revealed, the threats, although
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: widely published, were accepted as expressions of temper on the
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: part of the supporters of the fast losing cause. The
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: decision of the Supreme Court did more than clear the
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: suffrage field of legal entanglements. It pointed to the door
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: of the thirty sixth state. And toward this door suffragists
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: turned with hurrying feet. End of Chapter twenty nine. Recording
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: by Tory B.