Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 6.djvu/675

 VERMONT 659 the organic law of the State without the consent of the people." "The National Constitution," he said, "threatens free popular government alike as it stands and as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Its decision leaves the people at the mercy of any group of men who may lobby a proposal for a change in it through Congress and then through the Legislatures." Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, national president, issued an open letter to the Governor in the course of which she said: In order that this generation of your fellowmen and posterity also may not misunderstand your position, the National American Woman Suffrage Association urges you to supplement your proc- lamation with answers to the following questions : Do you challenge the fact which has stood unchallenged for 131 years that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of this land and supersedes all State constitutions whenever the two are in conflict? Do you know that on Jan. 10, 1791, Vermont ratified that Constitution, although she had one of her own, and by so doing accepted the precedence of the Federal Constitution and by that act was admitted into the Union? If you do know these facts of common knowledge why did you throw over your refusal to call a special session the camouflage of a dissertation about the alleged conflict between the Vermont and Fed- eral Constitutions which has nothing whatever to do with the calling of a special session of your Legislature? . . . Do you not know that when a Legislature acts upon a Federal constitutional amend- ment it draws its authority from the Federal and not from the State constitution, and that the Governor has no responsible part in the transaction except as custodian of the amendment when it comes from the Federal Secretary of State and returns to him with the Certificate of Ratification? Then why profess such a burden of personal responsibility in the matter? u pretend to fear "an invasion of State's Rights" and take upon yourself the responsibility of preserving "the foundations of free popular government." Then why did you veto the Presidential 1 suffrage bill passed by the Legislature of Vermont in 1919, which was strictly a State action and conferred the vote upon the women of Vermont alone? . . . Your national party convention in 1920 called for completion of ratification in time for women to vote for the next President. Your party's National Committee in the ink-rim of conventions took action three times once asking Congrc^ submit the amendment; once favoring early ratification and once calling upon Republican Governors to call special sessions in order that ratification might proceed. Your State party convention, your party's State Committee, yom lature, hundreds of Ver- mont women, the chairman of the National Republican Committee and the chairman of y<>nr State Republican Committee, the candidate President of your party- all have asked yu to call a special