Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 5.djvu/601

 Presidential suffrage in Vermont, Indiana and Wisconsin that winter increased hope. The suffrage Democrats were desirous of taking one more vote before going out of power. Mrs. Park's report said: "On petition of twenty-two Senators, a Democratic caucus on suffrage was held on February 5, the first since the United States entered the war. On a motion to adjourn, the suffragists without proxies defeated the "antis," who voted proxies, by 22 to 16. Ona resolution recommending that the Democratic Senators support the Federal Amendment, twenty-two voted in the affirmative and when ten had voted in the negative, those ten were allowed by Senator Thomas S. Martin (Va.), Democratic floor leader, to withdraw their votes in order that he might declare that, as the vote stood 22 to 0, a quorum had not voted and the resolution was lost! This decision was, of course, most irregular and unfair but it afforded a good illustration of the kind of tactics used by the opponents.

"After the close of the morning business February 10, Senator Jones moved to take up the amendment. An extremely strong speech in its favor was made by the new Senator, William P. Pollock of South Carolina. The only other speeches were by Senator Frelinghuysen (N. J.), on the question of individual naturalization of women and by Senator Gay (La.) in opposition to the amendment. The vote taken early in the afternoon showed 55 in favor and 29 opposed. As on October 1, all the members who were not present to vote were accounted for by pairs, so that it stood practically 63 in favor to 33 opposed. In other words the amendment was lost in the 65th Congress by one vote. The responsibility for the defeat lies at the door of every man who voted against it. Analyzed by parties and including pairs, the vote on February 10, was:

"Thus the Democrats lost their last opportunity and on March 1 the resolution for the amendment was again favorably reported by the Woman Suffrage Committee of the Lower House to be