xt70rx937t9n_283 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4.dao.xml unknown 13.63 Cubic Feet 34 boxes, 2 folders, 3 items In safe - drawer 3 archival material 46m4 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Laura Clay papers Temperance. Women -- Political activity -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- United States -- History. Women -- Suffrage -- Kentucky. Women -- Suffrage -- United States. Laura Clay compositions text Laura Clay compositions 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_14/Folder_10/Multipage13174.pdf 1919-1923 1923 1919-1923 section false xt70rx937t9n_283 xt70rx937t9n a


1 ‘

, -V pint-In my “N at A s1“.

- x L a 4.- 7.“
"4L lfirnA


efilishe‘ 1: fPe laws. ~£meawa~ccnziasiz

fittrivfii3r'fihiah‘nafi not ocbfi%féfi tn me that I SdeOR“fl tne evils of the

law wonlfi he nniyvtNRtvxamanxxaulés39k111n g xxnwarrnx felt only if at


stat s attnmpted to dony suffr:oe to women 'I considnr Federal s““~rvision

of stat» “leatifnp : , t of tyranny Vendy tn *Ee hana of any warty

or croup of stoic; wnich vvin; the surramany in “*nvthR “n? cares to u

it. Tavffi is not a renresentaulva D;.:-W M . g“ u L” which u

‘ . , 
‘43-; git-Fut‘fs, LJ{7I


Lat cmma vithi“ its eccwe,ns if

tn9ntv-tm0 Mb.~


ArOPvass iv fi"9cin0 $f¢*e FW

ELEVNM yaara mmrfi

r51 Huh

without any Federal interfere?


“:Y: \ rm‘ 9 «J U


S _


and exyen-


'0 be so any longer

1916 feclarei

Peyublican an

unendfiant method


entitlefl t3 @n


his firm stand.


d "a

:latforu: of all


fenator to

ithonf augnjment:

geoile ”entucky have the right now to



ask 01 aenator Backham and every other political leader is whole—
heartedly to carry out tmsixx the pledges of txaixx the polit-
iCal nagional platforms. ”e all know that if the leaders of the Tem—
ocra i0 and Vepublican parties give their honest support to initiate

and carry state amendments the momen will not need to bear the

burden of arduous and expensive camyuigns. This is the only fair

way to deal with moman suffrage. Will the men of Kentucky adept it?


 I/ % 4/1/ng viz/y fir‘iC/Lflz‘fl Jj Viv" ' Q7 E I? i 9

May I extend my remarks on the anthony yederal

Editor of The Herald;_

so—called suffrage amendment which appeared in the Herald Febr.16th?

My meaning has been so misunderstood by as careful a reader as Mrs.Breck-
inridge, as shown in her letter of Febr.22nd, that I would like to speak
further upon a subject as generally interesting as this at the present
political juncture.

I object to the Anthony amendment because it incorporates a polit—
ical provision besides woman suffrage, and which is antagonistic to the
liberties of all the peOple. It has gained many advocates, in my Opinion,
because that other provision is not commented upon in the popular demands
made for the amendment. That other provision authorizes Federal super-
vision of State elections. I pointed out that this provision is ex-

pressed in the 15th Amendment; but that by heroic efforts of its opponents,

it had never been put into effect, largely because it related to a minor

fraction of the people and interested only a few of the states. But when
it should apply to women, one half of the peOple, found in every voting
precinctqf every state, it was hopeless to suppose that this provision
would be allowed to remain a dead letter. I never supposed the evils of
such laws would be felt only if states attempted to deny suffrage to
women; but I consider tie establishment of Federal supervision of State
elections as instrument of tyranny ready to the hand of any party or
group of states which gains the supremacy in Congress and cares to use it,
There is not a representative government on earth which would believe
its liberties were secure if a foreign nation, however friendly, had au-
thority to place election officers at its polls. In the same way, there
is nothing in our political history or the current course of politics to
justify the belief that a group of states or a political party which msght
hold the supremacy in Congress would always refrain from using such a

power to further its own selfish purposes. To indulge in such a confi—


 9 ”'1 fl "’7 “T?



dence when we know to what extremss party passion and fanaticism will

carry the peOple at times is to my mind merely to lull ourselves into a
delusive somnolence, while it will remain forever true that "Eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty”.

The Anthony amendment prOposes to right the wrong of denying suffrage
to a fraction of the women by taking away a guarantee of liberty from
the whole peOple. For though the Federal supervision of state elections
in the two amendments would apply technically only to colored peOple
and white women in practice it would be difficult to keep it from having
an effect on white men. I think the ardor of many advocates of the An-
thony amendment would cool if they caught the view I have,- that Federal
supervisirn iszsoord which outs in all directions, and that it is quite in
the rznge of possibility that the South with its race problem would not
be the first or the only section to feel its edge.

I do not think it is a sound contention that because the legality of
the 15th amendment has never been denied by the Supreme Court there is
an argument for repeating its false or at least doubtfulprinciple in
another amendment. The world would have little ground to complain of
injustice anywhere it there were no injustices which did not come with-
in the cognizance of the courts or which the courts did not rectity. This
country has never felt the whole force of the 15th amendment, as Federal
supervision has never been put into effect; and yet, after nearly a half-
century of experience of it. its rightfulness and usefulness are constantly

denied by impartial people. If suffragists must have a federal amendment
for woman suffrage they should propose one which would accomplish their
object without injuring toe rights already secured to the people. But as

to toe inthony amendment no suffragist has a right to blame Congress for
not submitting it when under the cover of suffrage for women it really
demands a more extensive political provision which probably nanifinxnnnxxx
never could have obteined even a hearing if it had been presented only

on its own merits.


 ' y'"__,‘_v(1

Since the declaration of all parties for the principle of woman suf—

frage in 1916 there is no cause ‘_;gople of the Wnited States

are indifferent to the rights of women. ifihfldethose platforms were adop-


ted a greater number of women have been enfranchused by state action
than in all the previous years of agitation; tor while the number of states
have not been more the p0pulation of them is greater. There is no reason
to fear that when the electors are appealed to through their proper polit-
ical leaders every state in the union will resgond to tkh call upon their
loyalty tint%:§: national platforms. Our own beloved Kentucky is no
exception. It is well known that our last legislature could have been won
easily to submit a state amendment if the organized suffragists had asked
it. But the counsels preVailed of those who Wished not to divert any
sentiment fnum the Anthony amendment. in the great drive to force it
through Congress. Now the Senate, in its wisdom, has defeated that xmendmxt
amendment, and the way is clear for action along the state lines indica-
ted by the people through their delegates to the national Republican
and ‘emocratic conventions of I916. ”ill Mrs.Breckinridge unswervingly
use her great abilities and wide influence to secure from the incdming
legislature the submission of a state suffrage amendment and give the

people of Kentucky an opportunity to decide this question for themselves?


 .I. \
since the .oman suffr-g‘ ‘tnte Lmvnj: nt has been placed on the
Calendar of the ?enate it seems timely to consider a few cf the r {sons
why it should be submitted to the yeoyle even th ugh the ‘nthony
Federal amend 'nt has been ratified by‘the General ssemhly.

The second section of the -nthony -mchnn~nt confers upon fongress
the power to legislate upon State elections where women are concerned.
It is impossible to foretell what Congress may consider "apprOpriate
legislation" to enforee the provisions of the award «nt;but in the
light of history of similar legislation under the similar I5th amend-
ment , it can be oredicted with considerable certainty that the laws
enacted will be formulated with a View to the benefit of the domintnt
party in Congress just as far as the mower conferred upon Congress‘mill

permit, and that those ”tutes will fare best where those laws ere least

in evidence.

The elections in which women take part will be under Federal

law to the exclusion of state law just to the extent Congress finds
its interest to enact, us far as Lne towers conferred will oormit. The
women will not have equal force in modifying the election laws uneer
Which they vote that men have, if they choose to do so. Their re-
course will be not to the “tats legislature but to Congress; and *ash-
ington is a long way from Kentucky. Women's personal influence will
be practically nothing; and the thirteen members from Kentucky for
whom they may vote are a small fraction of the 531 members of Congress.

The ratification of the ’nthony amendment will make the word
"male" a deed letter in the election clduse of the State constitution,
just as the 15th finance nt made the word "white” a dead letter; but
neither can be removed without state ccnstituti nal action, Lnd until
that is done politic:l equality is not achieved.

Though the 15th men' ‘nt was effective in 1870 the negro men in

Ventucky tried in vain to save the word ”white ” removed; but it was


never done until :he constitutiunal convention of 1890; and in Ohio,
after it had been a dead letter more than forty years, a proposed
constituti nal amen tent to strike it out which the negro men succeeded
in having submitted was defeated at the po ls and still stands.

It cannot rightly be charged to negro men that they hate idle
sentimentality over the distinction of their right to vote from that
of white men,or that they ere seeking unnecessary work in trying to
have it removed. But they have found the consequences of this distinct-

ion to be irksome and disadvantageous to the degree that after long

years during which the word that marked it had been a dead letter , it;

ahey made the requisite to have it obliterated as far as possible.

The women of Kentucky have manifold the reason of negro men to
object to having their electoral rights depend solely upon Federal
authority, because there are many times more women in Kentucky than
there are negro men, and their importance to the state is in proportion.
T.ey sh uld not endure this discrimination in right a day after it
can be removed. Hence, now, when both Republicans and Democrats are
committed to the Ttate method of granting them the franchise by their
national platforms, and are pledged to the people by their fiyate plat-
forms to have a ”tate suffrage amendment submitted by this General
:ssembly, now is the time for the people to claim their promise to

make women the reel political peers of men.


 Can a Fundamental ?tate power be destroyed by Federal Amendment?

The first ten anendments were limitations upon Federal power for
the protection'of individual rightseither directly or through the states
by the application of the Home-Rule Principle of the Ioth amendment. The
11th protects the states against suit in the Federal Courts. The 12th
changed the machinery for electing the ?resident and did not aifect
State power.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were products of revolution, al-
thiugh adopted in form as Constitutional amendments, they were in fact
terms of peace and conditions of reconstruction imposed upon the
States in rebellion by force of arms.

The 15th recognizes the existing fact of the abolition of slavery
which the triumph of the Northern arms had already achieved. In itself
it effected nothing new. The police power of the states over the institu-
tion of slavery, to which its terms referred, were already non—existent.

The 14th anordmtnt established the Freedman's Bill of Right Civil x13
Rights. It extended for his benefit, as against the States, guarantees of
irdividual and property rights. It made no invasi n of r‘tafe power nor
transferred the same to the Feioral goVernmvnt.

The 15th fimondment related to suffrage,- suffrage however which, by
the fiat ” t.e military reconstruction governments, had already been
conferre upon hehegro. It made no new voters in the South as does the
proposed 19th. ‘This with its adoption by force, and with the acquiestence
ir its legality by all the States for fifty years avoids the 15th amend—
ment as a legal precedent.

The States in rebellion, as a condition to their re—admissitn with
full sovereignty and Congressicnal representation , were required to record
their affirmative assent and formal ratification of the three war amend-
ments, as they are therefore appropriately called. Without such forced
assent and rqtification the necessary three fourths could not have
been recorded.


The Income Tax Amendment re—nnxettii a Federal right existing from
the faundatiin of the govern ent and not affecting “tate power. The 17th
required the popular elect::n of senators, diminishing in noway the States'

power over such elections, the regulation of which had always been
ultimately Federal.

In the strictly historical sense, then, it can be truthfully said
that this is the first attampt by means of a Federal amend ~nt to limit
an existing State power reserved by the ICth Article of the Bill of Rights,
or to transfer the Same to the Federal gOVernment, or to infringe in
individual rig ts protected by our Home Rule plan.

Whether in the light of a perpetual union of equally perpetual States
that can be legally done is the question the supreme Court must deter—
mine;— whether the perpetual scheme of our government contemplated the right

of the citizen of Nevada, 3000 miles away, along with 55 other States of
varying distance, to affirmatively legislate upon the dinind tables and
persona; morals of a citizen of ?hode Island or to prescribe by perpetual
mandate the conditions of suffrage in south Carolina.



with these distant peoples the citizen of Nevada, except in the election
of a president and Congress, has no political or mutual political respon-
sibilities; with them he has, by necessity, no social relations, Except
as to the limited few engaged in long distance interstate trade, he has with
them no actual business.

The legal question then is: "Was such long distance interference with
local, personal customs, or racial conditions as affected by suffrage ,
unknown to the stranger legislator, and therefore utterly irresponsible
and tyrannous, beyond the power given by the amending clause as completely
destructive of Home Rule plan of government?

Cur form of government contemplates regulation of our intimate personal
and local affairs by a responsible political agency- the State legislature—
within reasonable reach of the anger of an outraged peOple. It contem—

plates government in such intimate personal affairs by those who we can
punish and reward by our votes; who must look us in the eye and be subject
to social ostracism and the door of fellowship being closed in their faces
if by their legislation they have committed an act of tyranny upon their
fellows, their neighbors.

That is the philosophy of the Home Rule plan of the Constitution
f the United States. That is the corner—stone without which it falls .

That and that alone is States Rights and local self—government.

If these amendments can be legally enacted, all our liberties can be
taken from us by irreSponsible, long distance political action. The entire
Bill of Rights, including its 10th Article, can be wiped out by this new
legislative method.

If the entire Bill of Rights should be held to be indestructible and
beyond the reach of amendment, this would not involve a rigid constitution,
but merely a permanent protection to the individual in his person and
property and to his right to government by his neighbors in all things
intimate, personal and local.

As the 18th amerdnent was the first amendment, properly so called which
invaded the states' reserved power fromerly inviolable; so the Igth_is the
first which will attempt to change many fitate constitutions without the

referendum required therein.


The legal question at once arises whether a “tate legislature whose
power is limited by its state constitution can amend its own limitations
therein by ratifying a Federal amendment.

If so, not only can the state destroy itself, but its mere agent, the 8
State legislature (with concurrence of 35 others) can destroy the state
constitution and with it the State itself as a political entity.

This is not to say that the State itself by an explicit act of its
whole peeple could not cede away a State power to the Federal government,
but only to say that its legislature, by this extraneous method, could not
surrender the rights of the people who created it, in defiance of the
instrument which expressly limits its powers, nor invade the internal af-

fairs of a dissenting sister state and forcibly denude its people of their
State power.

as indt is palénly as muchltheiduty of the Court to preserve the states
estruc l .e po i ea un ts for local puraoses as it is its d
preserve their indestructible union for Federallpurposes and to declzieto


ultra vires a measure of direct legislation presented in the disguise
01 a Federal amendment if it wholly or in partly destroys the State,
The limitation of power is as clear as in the ordinary case of an uncon-
stitutional statute.

To what purpose are both Federal and State powers so limited as to
preserve an indestructible union of indestructible States if the right.
and duty does not remain in the Federal judiciary to declare those 11ml-
tations, simply because the form of the obnoxious act conforms to that
of an orthodox Federal amendment?

The matter is clearly Justiciable. It begs the question to say that,
under our dual form of government, there is no such thing as an unconsti-
tutional amendnent. When such proposed amendment destroys the Federal
form of our government in whole or in part, or violates the letter of many
of the individual State constitutions, whose legislatures attempted to
ratify, theremust be judicial power to declare such amendment void.

Otherwise, it must be held that we can commit governmental suicide
without an actual physical revolution, by simply invoking the forms of
the amending clause.

These amendments establish form rules , practically permanent in
character, which the people of no State can hereafter change by any action
of their own.

When before in history was such a voluntary surrender of the power
of local self—government attempted to he made by a free people?

Both the 18th amend-art and tne proposed 19th amerdment destroy
fundamental State power. Both impose by force a distasteful policy upoh
the people of unwilling sections. The people of four States are coerced
by the former and of at least seven by the latter.

If the question of legality is held not to be justiciable, or if
the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, feels it must sustain them as legal acts
of government, then a revolution has happened, not only in our form of
government, but in our political thought, which foredooms our continued
existence as the Federal republic under whose Home Rule plan we have
become great and until now remained free.

It will doubtles be admitted as a legal preposition that it would be
ultra vires and within the power of the smart Supreme Court to so declare,
for two—thirds of a quorum of Congress , backed by 36 State legislatures,
to impose upon the people of I2 dissenting States the so—called nationaliza-
tion of women; to abolish the freedom of the press; to establish polygamy;
to cede all State power; to abolish property; to prescribe a particular
religion; or to set up a monarchy in place of ou Federal union.

Yet if the question of the power to pass the so+called 18th and
19th amendnents is not a subject for Judicial determination, neither could
the Supreme Court declare any such acts void in law, provided they were
clothed in the prescribed form of, and adopted as Fonstituti nal amendments.

As long as we remain the "nited States of imerica that can not be,

It should be further noted in reference to the legality of the suf-
frage amendment;
(I) That the Missouri State Constitution provides;
Art.II.Seotion 3. We declare, that Xissouri is a free and indepen—
dent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United Qtates; and


as the nreservaticn of the states and the maintenance of their governments
are necessary to an indestructible Union, and were intended to co-exist
with it, the legislature is not authorized to adopt nor will the people
of this state ever consent to any amenir ht or change to the Constitution
of the T*nited States which may in any wise impair the right of local
self—government, belonging to the people of this state."

(2) That the Ohio Supreme Court has held the people of Ohio are
part of its Legislature, which of course prevents the vote of that State
from being cast for or against the Anondnont until the popular referendum
thereon in November, unless the supreme Court reverses the Supreme Court
in Ihio.

(5) That litigation is supposed to be in progress in “est Virginia
to contest the legality of the unseating of a State senator upon the claim
that he had resigned, in order to c unt a majority for the Amendment,

Yet it is announced and re—iterated every day that in case one more
Legislature votes to ratify the Suffrage imendrent , it will be at once
proclaimed by counting Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia on the affirmative,
notwithstanding the fiissouri Constitution, the Test Virginia ltgixixtian
litigation, and the pending of the Ohio Referendum case before the
Supreme Court and without waiting for an authoritative ruling ’therein.

But does any body care? If the presidential election
should thereby be thrown in legal confusion and a contest resulted, the
heat of which might throw us into an actual revolution, would we care
then? In the present state or 118 public mind it is difficult to say.











: <31" 1: 1'5






 1v UO‘CKX).00.

Q fif


’vivc yrsuedcm





 :"Tr‘tw‘uztmx‘x Le.

3‘? u 1i “3'

A. . .. 1'; .
11mm VET-T?

a; my


. 1': ,

xvi" ('1'?


1314:? e:

,. m
a: {13 in, .3 01° (:4

w‘xj?“‘;“i 3 V‘. n i
1‘ . .NJ. (2 *»


 . ,. L 5 v
.1 mfgn‘AJuL ‘ 1L ‘5‘}

1.1 \ :3 a

boys and 51 girls on parole from
i 1

‘v': u wnr"4.There are 169
la have been returned for parole v¢o$a-

Four boys and four gir

tie: and 6 girls are ‘g c:,:.
Posted as Parole vxflabrs. fivdiuw;

z , ‘Yn
' “4.5;





 J£“"':t M iii": '2 tiling v iii" ”mum tfl' 315.9%: mm?

flanking; vith the u {if

L:_::.~O 1:20. Lifted

if. J: 1" L?


'? ".
v . g
kg. -- 1.x]




‘ I





 *1; 1011












\g .L







 ience in charge of, or employed at that institution. The in-
evitable consequence was an utter letting down of discipline which
was reflected in the labor of the men, escapes, and in general un-
satisfactory conditions.

The innumane methods of punishment that had been in vogue
at this institution in the punishment of prisoners were abolished
under Warden Davis. That one change, in itself, was sufficient to
cause much unrest among the prisoners, as any sudden change always
does; particularly when it is accompanied by a false impression that
a change in disciplinary methods means a relaxation of discipline
itself. This situation was further aggravated by the fact that
a large number of inexperienced guards and officers were appointed,
not one of whom had any conception of prison administration, or
their duties. In an attempt to remedy this situation, the Board
secured the services of a distinguished and successful prison admin-
istrator, Mr. W. H. Moyer, of New York. He came to Kentucky in
August, first of all handicapped by the fact that in the press and
elsewhere there was criticism that the Board had not selected a
citizen of Kentucky, a public attitude that deprived him of the
loyal support of his subordinates. The subordinates were un-

trained. He had to grapple with a situation single handed that

would have been serious and difficult enough had he had a corps

of experienced, capable and loyal officers. He came to the
State on a leave of absence from other worlg in the hope that he
would be able to remain a sufficient length of time to enable him

to train some one for the office of Superintendent. In spite of


 the fact hat he worked in a hostile atmosphere he accomplished
much in the rehabilitation of the institutions, the improvement of
the conditions of the prisoners, and their discipline.

The new Superintendent, Mr. Gastin, has entered upon his
duties under more auspicious circumstances. He has a capable deputy
who had been employed by Mr. Moyer a month before his resignation
took effect. He found a better spirit and higher morale among
both prisoners and guards, than had existed at any time during the pre-
ceding year, and he has entered upon his duties with an earnest and
intelligent purpose to bring this institution up to the standard it
ought to occupy.

The Editor of the Herald has asked that we state the facts

bearing on the appointment, and subsequent removal, of Mr. Davis as
Superintendent of the State Reformatory, and the appointment to that
position of Mr. Bastin. Mr. Davis was appointed because he seemed

to be the best man in sight at a time when conditions at the Reform-
atory demanded an immediate change. These conditions were re-
vealed by the report of a committee of the Legislature of 1920. He
was removed after five months! service had demonstrated that his
management of that institution did not conform to the Board’s forward-
looking and non-partisan purposes and standards.

Mr. Bastin was not an applicant for the superintendency, nor
was any application made in his behalf by any one else. For several
months Mr. Byers, the Commissioner, and the members of the Board had
been seeking the right man for this big and difficult job. Mr. Byers,
whose duty it is under the law to name the administrative heads of

the institutions, subject to confirmation by the Board, on his

own initiative, searched out the men in the State whom it might be


 worth while for him and the Board to consider. Among them was Mr.
Bastin. After a careful personal conference with, and observation
of, him, he was appointed. Mr. Bastin had attended the University
of Kentucky, and graduated from Purdue University as an electrical
engineer. He was head of the public utilities of Lancaster, and a
successful business man of considerable executive ability. He was
also interested in educational work, having served as a member and
president of the Lancaster Board of Education. Any man who will go
to Frankfort and inquire, will find that he, Superintendent Bastin,
is justifying theBoard's judgment.

The Commissioner of Public I