xt70rx937t9n_516 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. Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets text Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_30/Folder_7/Multipage24411.pdf 1919 1919 1919 section false xt70rx937t9n_516 xt70rx937t9n _/

Mine “Adversary hath/ Written a book.” “Yea thine own lips testify against


thee.”—J ob.

Women ARE Taught by NIen to Deceive; All are Liars
How Long Halt Ye Between (these) Two Opinions?

“Greater Love Hath No Man”





Notable Suitragist Passes Through Birmingham on Way
to Address State Association at Tuscaloosa.
Talks Interestingly of Progress
of the Work.

“But women are greater liars,” was Dr. Anna
Howard Shaw’s reply to a remark that men were
liars, made by a prominent suffragist at the Tut-
wiler Thursday morning.

“All women are liars. That is the trouble with
the suffrage movement today. Women have been
taught for so long, by the men, to win what they
wanted by deceit, that it is now hard to come for-
ward and ask for it in a straight forward man-

Dr. Shaw has a charming, almost Scotch, accent
and her face is touched with the lines of an habit-
ual humorist. “The most consistent part of men
is their inconsistency,” she continued. “I have
always thought so, but I never had the nerve to
say it until recently.”

But when she launched into the serious ques-
tions that have to do with woman suffrage, one
could not imagine her lacking nerve in anything.

She chatted lightly on several subjects, her
trip, her recent visit to Raleigh, N. C., and Phila-
delphia, and the progress of the cause in other
sections of the country.

“But,” she said, “I believe that undoubtedly the
Southern States will be ahead of the East and the
Northeast in winning the ballot. Things may
look dark at times, but progress during the last
two or three years has indicated the advance of
the cause.

“The men and their idea of chivalry, which does
not now and never did exist, stand most in the
way in the South. They are most conservative
and fear the entrance of women into politics,
which they say is too filthy, and yet they refuse to
admit that they are themselves part of the filth.
They give reasons, but stick to theory and idea
rather than facts.

“It isn’t the men who are working and making
homes that I fear. It is the shifting, unsettled,
mostly unmarried men that are drifting in groups
from place to place that will give the most trouble.
They are the first to make objections.

“The legislators say that women will not be sat-
isfied with the ballot, they will be wanting to hold
office, but the recent law passed in Montgomery
allowing women on school boards, shows that they
are willing that women should hold office, but
want them elected by the men.”

—Birmingham News.




By James Callaway. ,

The press dispatches from London relate a touching story of man’s def-
erence to woman—even giving his life to save hers.

Alfred G. Vanderbilt was on the deck of the Lusitania as she went
down. He could not swim, and had equipped himself with a life belt. Near
him he saw a young woman without a life belt. He gallantly took his off
and placed it around this woman—a stranger to him. Before he could se-
cure another the boat sank. This man of great wealth, gave his life to save
the woman. This was “pedestal.” His duty was to the weaker one. He
surrendered to her his only chance of life.

“No man has greater love than this—that he lays down his life for an-

When Southern men say they place their women upon a pedestal, what
do they mean? That the woman comes first. He places her above him.
He regards her as purer, loftier than himself.

Even when the sea is opening as a yawning gulf, and only one life-pre-
server, he hands that to the woman. That is what we mean when we say
we place our women on a “pedestal.” Save her, even if the man goes down.
This is the Southerner’s ideal of his duty.

And, like Vanderbilt, so did Archibald Butt act in the tragedy of the
Titanic. A member of the White House, associated with President Taft,
the officials rushed to provide his representative with a seat in the life-
boat—a compliment to his official station. Did he avail himself of it?

What did he do?

A woman was near. He seized her, placed her in the seat reserved for
him, and as the boat was sinking, waved her adieu, his very countenance lit
with a smile. This was manhood. This was “pedestal.” He gave his life
to save the woman. Greater love hath no man than that.

Love for what? Not for the individual woman whose life was saved,
but in obedience to that principle of deference to womankind.

May our Southern women remain on the pedestal, forever preserve that
distinctive deference which is theirs so long as they remain as they are——
our highest ideals of the true, the beautiful and the good.

Thank God that Archibald Butt and Alfred G. Vanderbilt illustrated in
their self-sacrifice the true spirit of American manhood.

On Mother’s Day we wore the white flower in token of our affection for
our departed mothers. The heart of each bowed in love and reverence at
her shrine. This, too, was “pedestal.” May our women never desert the
pedestal, but remain on it—the objects of perpetual adoration and homage.

Deference to its womankind has always been a distinguished character-
istoc of the Southern people. Southern men would perpetuate it. But for-
eign forces have invaded us, established branches over the South of a huge
National Woman’s Association whose ideals are not our ideals; whose
women are not like our Southern women. They are women of a different
clay, and are of different mould. Should these foreign crusaders succeed,

pervert the tastes of our women, persuade them to abandon their old ideals

and descend into the arena of politics, as practiced in Oregon, Washington,
California and Colorado, then the Southern mothers of the future will
change the song, “Oh, Where Is My Wandering Boy Tonight?” and dis-
tressingly and despairingly ask, “Oh, where is my wandering girl?”

Woe is the day for Southern civilization when the “pedestal” is over-

God be praised that heaven’s door was wide open to Archibald Butt and
Alfred Vanderbilt. They symbolized our “pedestal.”

—Macon (Georgia) Telegraph.

Lest Ye Forget. Only Fourteen States Want SuffrageZThirty-F our Against.







Why this Hysteria? Only 14 States For Suffrage and 34 Against.

(By J. B. Evans)


that our country now faces, but if Northern agi-

tators can come among us and discuss it in our
High School building, he feels that a native of the State,
who has its best interests at heart, should be excused for
saying a few words through the press in opposition to a
propaganda which he honestly believes is a worse menace
to society and good government than a war with Ger-

In her recent speech at Montgomery, Dr. Shaw accused
me of attacking the leaders of the movement instead of
the cause itself. She was mistaken or misinformed; but
I know of no better way to judge a cause than by its lead-
ers. So I will mention a few facts as to some of them.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the first and fore-
most leaders and advocates of Woman Suffrage, and an
agitator of the fanatical type. She was one of the au-
thors of the History of Woman Suffrage, and a brilliant
woman. But it is hard to understand how a Christian
woman can follow such a leader or her teachings. She
regarded the Bible as a man-made libel of women, and so
dissatisfied was she with it that she wrote one of her own,
called “The Woman’s Bible,” in which she tore the Good
Book into shreds from Genesis to Revelations, not even
exempting Jesus Christ from criticism on account of His
attitude toward women. In the Suffrage History some
verses by a Suffragette are quoted with approval, winding
up with these lines:

HE writer realizes that controversial subjects like
I Woman Suffrage should be tabooed in a crisis like

“This doctrine of Jesus, as preached up by Paul,
If embraced in its spirit, will ruin us all.”

Susan B. Anthony, the most prominent leader, was a
rabid hater of the Southern people to the day of her
death, and an absolute worshiper of the negro. Not a
great while before her death she expressed keen regret
that the statue of “Mr.” Fred Douglass, her intimate
negro friend, erected at Rochester, New York, faced
South instead of North, because “Mr.” Douglass had
nothing in common with the South.

Dr. Anna Howard Shaw was the bosom friend of Miss
Anthony, and is thoroughly imbued with all of her South-
hating, negro—loving propensities. In July, 1915, she went
directly from Montgomery to Philadelphia and address-
ing the Suffrage department of the Federation of Colored
Women’s Clubs, she said, “I hate to speak of colored peo-
ple or white people, to speak to colored people or white
people, I do like to speak to women.” She deprecated the
fact that some negro men were opposing woman suffrage,
and said that in so doing he was hurting his own people.
“He then shows he is not better than the white man and
he ought to be better than the white.”

Dr. Shaw is a woman of engaging manners and mag-
netic personality, but her intellectual development, as
evidenced by her writings, is decidedly mediocre. I do
not, however, entirely agree with a very prominent neu-
rologist, Chas. L. Dana, who said it is comparable to that
of an eleven year old child.

Another is Mrs. Norman D. R. Whitehouse, State Pres-
ident of the New York E. S. A. In the January, 1916,
issue of the Masses, edited by Max Eastman, a radical
Socialist, Feminist and Woman Suffragist, appeared a

“Ballad” setting forth in gross language that Jesus
Christ was the illegitimate offspring of Mary, a fallen
woman, and praising her husband, Joseph, for taking her
to the Manger to protect her from the gossip and insults
of their neighbors. In the following issue of the same
magazine, February, 1916, appeared a long advertisement
appealing to Woman Suffragists for donations to help the
magazine in financial difficulties. Among much other
gush it said: “In cartoon, in verse, in editorial, in story,
the Masses has stood by us as no other magazine in
America has. We propose to surprise the Masses this
year by a New Year’s present of $2,500.00 from the
women who appreciate its stand for Feminism.” This
was signed by Vira Boorman Whitehouse (Mrs. Norman
DeR.), Alice Carpenter, and other prominent Suffragists.
It is needless to mention Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont, the
woman of divorce fame; everybody knows her. Can any
cause be a good one with such leaders?

If you advocate the cause, don’t you endorse its leaders
and all they stand for? And don’t forget that among its
most earnest advocates are all Mormons, all Socialists, all
Feminists, negro preachers and negro school teachers. A
niCfi bunch for ladies to be associated with even polit-
ica y. \

In conclusion, many prominent sulc stantial business
men are asking by what authority the City High School
Auditorium is used for their harangu ‘ by political agi-
tators, and whether the citizens of Selma are expected to
vote another bond issue for the erection of another school
to be lent to such purposes. The twelve hundred Selma
women who signed a protest against Woman Suffrage,
many of whom have children at the school, should protest
en masse against its desecration.

Among other things, Dr. Dana says:

“Finally, as to anti-suffrage and intelligence. There is,
I find, an acute controversy as to which party is the less
intelligent, the suffragists or anti-suffragists. Real in-
telligence lies in wisdom, in the power to adjust one’s acts
and functions to the environment and its problems; and
women seem, so far, to have taken in large measure the
sufirage question, not intelligently, but obsessively. It is
adopted as a kind of religion, a holy cult of self and sex,
expressed by a passion to get what they want. There is
no program, no promise; only ecstatic assertions that
they ought to have it and must have it, and of the won-
ders that will follow its possession. The minds which lead
a cause may be great and broad, inspired and unselfish;
but they are so only when the cause has the same quali-
ties. There are many quiet, sensible women who honestly
believe in this cause, but often the active and aggressive
workers and writers who think themselves so clever are
definitely defective mentally. Measured by fair rules of
intelligence testing, I should say that the average zealot
in the cause has about the mental age of 11. They look
through a cranny and see a dazzling illumination beyond,
which is to them the light of a new heaven when it is real-
ly only the sublimation of an unoccupied “elan vital.” Yet
they consider every one who does not believe with them
to be unintelligent, so I suppose that they will class as
such. Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) Chas. L. Dana, M. D.

c'Lest Ye Forget.” Write Your Representative in Congress and Your Senators

not to Vote for Woman Suffrage.



IT is a favorite argument with
sufi'ragists that women, by keener
insight, higher standards, steadier
devotion to duty, and superior prac-
tical ability, would effect civic re-
forms which have been neglected
by men. We hear over and over
again that “woman is an adept at
house-celaning” and that “city gov-
ernment is nothing but municipal
house-cleaning;” that “the commu-
nity is only a larger home,” and
that “it needs mothering.”

It would be pleasant to share .

this confidence in the present
achievement of our sex, and to feel
that it was ready for more worlds
to conquer. But the facts do not
point that way. One after another,
social experts, the country over,
are voicing the conviction that the
individual home is not being “moth-
ered” as it should be, and that
faults there are responsible for
much of the evil of the community.

Speaking of wife-desertion—one
of the evils which suffragists hope
to check by Women’s votes—Mrs.
Catherine Van Wyck, President of
the Wisconsin State Conference on
Charities and Corrections—said,
last fall: “Some of the homes I
have seen almost justify the hus-
band in running away from them.
The Wife who does not know her
job must take her share of the
blame for many cases of wife-de-
sertion.” Upon this same point,
Miss Lucy Wheelock, the well-
known educator, has said: “No
business is so poorly and ineffici-
ently conducted as that of house-
keeping. To the luxury and inef-
ficiency of the modern household,
many economists charge the high
cost of living. They are not far
wrong. At least they are right
enough to make it imperative that
we give our girls good and
thorOugh training in all the craft
of home-making and housekeep-

Juvenile courts, the suffragists
claim, would be reenforced in their
work if women could vote. But
Mrs. Fred T. Dubois, President of
the Big Brother and Sister move-
ment, though in close sympathy
with these courts, writes to the
Washington Times of June 12, to
emphasize the need of urgent meas-
ures of prevention, before boys and
girls reach the stage of juvenile
crime. “Can you make human na-
ture good through law?” asks
Mrs. Dubois. “Is the old-fashioned
home disappearing? I tremble at
the thought. But when we watch
the crowds upon the streets, day
and night, the crowded cafes and
restaurants, the dance-halls, mov-
ing-picture shows and theatres,
this thought is uppermost: To


(From The Remonstrance, October. 19”)

what are we trending? The social
centre is gradually going to take
the place of the home, if we are not
watchful. For we are trending
toward the community life in this
country. Can we become as strong
a nation built of large units as of
small ones well modelled? The
community must grow out of the

The public teaching of sex-hy-
giene is another subject in which
the suffragists believe women vot-
ers would take keen interest. But
here, again, experts are pronounc-
ing women unequal to the oppor-
tunities they already have. Mr.
Graves Moore of the Juvenile Pro-
tective Association of Chicago, re-
porting last March on the work of
the association in classifying causes
in the cases of 500 unmarried moth-
ers, said: “We find that more than
half of them come from homes
where there is no financial pres-
sure, but that they never had pre—
sented to them the essential facts
of life.” Dr. Charles H. Keene, of
Minneapolis, a supervisor of hy-
giene and physical training, said
at the recent meeting of the Na-
tional Educational Association:
“We should have but the strongest
contempt for the wealthy, club-
going woman who has not time to
teach her child the fundamental
truths of life, and would throw the
responsibility upon a teacher or a
football coach. Such shiftlessness
is outrageous.” Dr. E. P. Colby,
professor of nervous diseases in
Boston University, said before a
Ford Hall audience, last winter:
“The proper place for such teach-
ing is the home. But how many
mothers are capable of instructing
their daughters in such matters?
Probably not one-half.”

Speaking of the abnormal ner-
vous conditions which, in his opin-
ion, lead many girls to go wrong,
Dr. Colby said: “The remedy lies
in the early education a good moth—
er can give.” Looking at the same
pitiful question from another
standpoint, Miss Mary Bartelme,
head of Chicago’s Court for Delin-
quent Girls, told a reporter from
the Boston Herald, last year, that
the majority of the girls who were
brought before her were between
fourteen and sixteen. “Almost in-
variably,” said Miss Bartelme, “I
find that‘the home environment of
these children had been bad. ‘When
the home is bad, it must be a girl
of sterling principle who remains
good. There has been a great hue
and cry raised recently that most
girls go wrong because of inade-
quate wages. I do not believe this
is true. Low wages, I think, drive
comparatively few girls to the



L ‘..- A
J ‘ r
. i

It is startling to realize that the
heedlessness, vanity, and social am-
bition of women are actually pan-
dering to vice. But no thought-
ful observer can doubt the fact.
Speaking on “Commercialized
Prostitution” in Brooklyn, last
March, Mr. George J. Kneeland, of
the Department of Investigation of
the American Social Hygiene As-
sociation, enumerating the causes
which swell the number of women
in the profession each year, laid
special emphasis on “the increasing
tendency toward immoral and sug—
gestive amusements as a serious
problem in American life.” For
this tendency, surely, the mothers
rather than the fathers of the com-
munity are to blame. At the thea-
tre, too, and at the fiction-counter,
the lack of delicacy shown by wom-
en patrons is notorious.

That woman’s vote would break
up the “white-slave traffic,” and
go far toward curing the social evil,
has been the strongest argument of
the suffragists. And yet, at that
very Tremont Temple meeting, last
year, when their leader, Mrs. Car-
rie Chapman Catt, exploited the un-
savory subject so sensationally,
Mr. Frederic H. Whitin, of the
New York Committee of Fourteen,
declared that “a happy home is the
greatest preventive of the White
slave traffic,” and added, “The
great problem, however, is to edu-
cate young women not to arouse

Last spring, before a fashion-
ably attired New York audience of
nearly one thousand, with an ad-
mission price of $2, the same sub-
ject was again discussed by ex-
perts. “The attitude of women to-
ward libertines, rakes and dissi-
pants,” says the reporter, “was
handled without gloves by the
speakers, and it was the opinion of
those dealing with the subject that
women themselves are largely to
blame for the present situation.
Clifford G. Roe, President of the
American Bureau of Moral Educa-
tion of Chicago, unhesitatingly told
his audience (mostly women) that
this was so.”

Plain speaking, this is. The fact
that many of the sociologists whose
opinions have been quoted are
themselves suffragists only makes
their admissions more striking.
The need of the day seems to be,
not more “mothering” of the com-
munity, but better “mothering” of
the individual child. This conclu-
sion will be a welcome one to the
multitudes of mothers who believe
that they can serve the community
better through the home than
through the ballot-box.

(Published by the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women, Room 615, Kensington Building, Boston.)




Virginia Warns Her People

Against Woman Su













From The Richmond Evening J omvml M (13/ l}, .IQI5—chublishcd by Request.

Several times The Richmond Evening Journal
has been asked to say which counties of Virginia
have more colored than white female inhabitants.
The question, of course, is in connection with the
somewhat noisy demands we read of in the news-
papers for “votes for women.” Here is the list,
from the United States census of 1910:

Colored White
Females. Females.

Amelia 2,658 1,578
Brunswick 5,549 3,843
Buckingham 3,881 3,738
Caroline 4,314 3,934
Charles City 1,817 645
Charlotte 4,267 3,599
Cumberland 2,966 1,604
Dinwiddie 4,619 2,866
Essex 2,618 1,868
Goochland 2,585 1,914
Greenesville 3,720 2,177
Halifax 10,330 9,815
Isle of Wight 3,720 3,633
King and Queen ............................................. 2,635 2,069
King William 2,409 1,698
Lancaster 2,531 2,279
Lunenburg 3,338 2,856
Mecklenburg 8,280 6,160
Middlesex 2,148 2,053



N ansemond 7,847 5,602

New Kent ...... 1,317 802
Norfolk 15,936 10,039
Northampton 4,587 3,536
Nottoway 3,715 3,016
Powhatan 1,818 1,168
Prince Edward ................................................ 4,367 2,905
Prince George ................................................ 2,257 1,601
Princess Anne ................................................ 2,883 2,683
Southampton ‘ 8,005 5,001
Surry 2,804 1,763
Sussex 4,458 2,270
Warwick 2,053 819
Westmoreland ................................................ 2,27 9 2,193

We may assume that the proportions of fe-
males twenty-one years of age, or over, or who

have come of age since the census was taken is
the same in the two races.



Assuming that the women of the two races
would qualify to vote in the same proportions and
that the white and colored male vote would re-
main as they were shown to be by the returns of
the last presidential election, the colored people
would have absolute and immediate control of the
counties of Amelia, Brunswick, Caroline, Charles
City, Charlotte, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Essex,
Goochland, Greenesville, King and Queen, King
William, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Nansemond,
New Kent, Norfolk, Northampton, Nottoway,
Powhatan, Prince Edward, Southampton, Surry,
Sussex, Warwick and Westmoreland.

In Buckingham, Halifax, Lancaster and Prin-

' cess Anne the whites would have a fighting

chance if their women vote and present white
male vote combined solidly against the colored
woman and present colored male vote.

It is to be remembered that the literacy test
would not work in choking ofl“ the colored woman
vote. The colored people are decreasing their per-
centage of illiteracy very fast, especially among
their women and girls. The ladies of the suffrage
league will hardly come forward with a property
test. No safeguard would be left but the poll tax;
and if colored women knew they could get votes
and rule some very rich and important counties
by paying $1.50 apiece, we are inclined to think
most of them would be willing to go hungry, if
necessary to do it.

Probably the ladies engaged in this suffrage
movement are not very practical or very logical
or very well informed or disposed to bother their
heads with the actual facts of politics. Most of
them, we surmise, hold the somewhat vague, but
firmly established feminine line of reasoning that
when they want something, or think they want it,
they ought to have it by all principles of wisdom
and justice; and are prepared always to fall back
on the traditional conclusive feminine argument
“because.” ‘

No other argument, however profound, is quite
so convincing or fascinating as that word “be-


cause, accompanied by some pouting of alluring
and scarlet lips—especially if there be dimples by
way of re-enforcement. But men are compelled
and accustomed to face and deal with hard facts
when considering important affairs in business or
in politics. It is a hard fact that twenty-nine
counties of Virginia would be condemned by
woman suffrage to colored rule and five others
would be in serious peril of it with woman suf-

We do not suppose, or imagine, that the suf-
frage ladies would suggest resort to counting out
the colored people of their own sex or to stuffing
ballot boxes or padding registration lists. We
wicked and inefficient and tyrannical men who
are supposed to have made such a sad mess of
government in Virginia, became ashamed of such
methods and alarmed by them and contrived to
remove the necessity for them. Surely, we are
not to be incited to return to the slimepit from
which we dug ourselves.

The population and the votes are in these coun-
ties as stated. We can’t get away from the fig-
ures and facts, ladies. Take twenty-nine counties
and make them Republican and add them to the
counties already Republican, or close, and the
Democratic party and whit-e rule in Virginia will

’be swinging on a mighty thin line.


 Anna Howard Shaw Said:

the American Flag But a


,, l, ,-
..1‘ I’
\ ’ ’

Piece of Bunting”


America does not need Military and Industrial Preparedness if it is Pre-
pared to Live Within its Own Borders.”


Speech Made at the Last Session of the Forty-Eighth Annual Convention of the
National American Woman Suffrage Association.


So much Indignation was Aroused Over this Statement. Throughout the North. that
she Laboriously Composed a Very Eulogistic Peroration to this Flag
Trying to Deny the First. but the Records were Against her.




(By J. B. Evans)

The action of the powers that be in placing the
management and control of women’s war service
in the hands of suffragist leaders and particularly
the registration of Alabama women was, from a
patriotic point of View, distinctly unfortunate.
The inevitable disappointing result might have
easily been foreseen. After weeks of publicity
and explanation through the newspapers of the
object of the registration, and a formal proclama-
tion by the Governor fixing the day and calling on
all women to show their patriotism by registering
on that day, very few, comparatively speaking,
responded. No enthusiasm was shown except by
the suffragettes, practically all of whom regis-

Was this enthusiasm aroused by pure and undi-
luted patriotism or was it zeal for their peculiar
propaganda and the political advantage they ex-
pected to gain by having all of the women come to
them to register? Is it possible that the very
small per cent of Alabama women who compose
the Alabama Woman’s Suffrage Association are
more patriotic than the great mass of our women
outside of the A. E. S. A.? If so, it is gratifying
to know that in this respect at least they are rad-
ically different from their Northern leaders from
whom they get their Suffrage Education and from
whom they take their orders.

When it became evident that war could not be
averted unless this country was willing to lay
down in the dirt and crawl, and the Administra-
tion was urging preparedness, the Catts, the
Shaws, the Addamses and practically all the lesser
lights among the suffrage leaders by their atti-
tude and utterances, did everything and said ev-
erything possible to hinder and delay the Presi-
dent in his efforts. Some of their utterances were
worse than unpatriotic, they were seditious and
savored of treason. They were all pacifists of the
aggressive and defiant type. Rev. Anna Shaw re-
ferred to the flag contemptuously as “only a piece
of bunting.” Mrs. Carry Catt frankly declared
that she was “rebellious” and that this country
had no right to wage war for democracy until it
made itself democratic. On May 11, after she had
been put on the Woman’s Committee of the Board
of Defense, (as unfortunate a blunder as putting
the Suffragists in control of the registration), she
made a speech at Toronto, her announced subject
being National defense. The Toronto Daily News
in reporting it said among other things “Mrs.
Catts never reached National defense nor any-
thing else but Votes for Women.” “She was dis-
tinctly unpatriotic. The United States was at-
tacked rather than defended by the lecturer. The
position of the women of Yucatan was compared
with that of the women of the United States to
the disadvantage of the latter,—an insult to the
intelligence of her audience and a defamation of
her country.” “Surely even the most ordinary

ideas of decency would be sufficient to suggest
that her diatribe be confined to the borders of her

own country.”

Miss Jane Addams, the queen bee of the paci-
fist-suffragists closing her philanthropic eyes and
ears to the horrors of Belgium and France, to the
shrieks of agony of tortured and outraged women
and apparently forgetful or unmindful of the
thousands of murdered and starving children
ground under the heels of fiends incarnate who

were only obeying the direct orders of the spawn
of hell who rules them, begged the President “to
consider the feelings of our German-American cit-
izens” before declaring war on their dear father-

When, despite the wails and protests of these
pacifist-suffragists, Congress declared war and
the Administration began to prepare for it, the
Catts and the Shaws from the depths of their own
fertile brains or inspired by the advice of some
shifty politician, suddenly conceived the idea of
changing their tactics, and presto, the word was
sent to the faithful: “We, the women of Amer-
ica,” not as women merely, but as suffragists, do
hereby assume the burden of organizing all the
women of America for war service, and we shall
claim all the credit as suffragists for all the patri-
otic services of all the women and we hope and
expect the reward which we will surely demand,
viz.: the passage of the Anthony Amendment. Be-
lated and newly hatched patriotism in one hand
and political propaganda in the other,-—patriot-
ism with a string to it.

In' condemning the unpatriotic, words and ac-
tions of the suffrage leaders, the writer does not
for a moment mean to charge that any Alabama
woman is unpatriotic. It has been proved in the
wars of the past that there are no women on earth
more patriotic than the women of the South. Un-
fortunately some of them have allowed them-
selves to be misled by bold women who are the
product of the peculiar social conditions of our
Northern cities into advocating a political innova-
tion the realization of which would be the undoing
of the South, and the surrender of the vital prin-
ciple of home rule for which their fathers bled and
died. Most of the members of the Alabama Suf-
frage Association, are daughters and granddaugh-
ters of Confederate Veterans. In working hand
in hand, as they are doing, with these Northern
women for the passage of the Anthony Amend-
ment, these misguided daughters of the South are
endorsing the principles for which Thad Stevens,
Fred Douglass, Susan B. Anthony and other bitter
enemies of the South contended, and if they suc-
ceed then indeed was the blood of their fathers
shed in vain.

The failure of Alabama women to come for-
ward and register was not due to apathy nor to a
lack of patriotism. It was-silent resentment of
the fact that they were expected to submit them-
selves for registration under the auspices of a po-
litical organization, an aggressive organization
with aims and purposes that a