by simply appealing to the States and never appealing to our national body, it will be a matter of many years I do not dare say how many, and I do not think that any one would dare say how many years it would be; but if we go on at the rate we have been going during these past few years in bringing about those changes, they will be brought about so slowly and the cost will be so much that we can just make up our minds to this, that we women who are living now, and who do care so much about seeing this advance made in the position of women, will certainly have spent our lives without realizing it.

There is very little hope that under those conditions we will be able to complete it during our lifetime. We will not be able during our lifetime to change the inequalities that exist in the laws of this country so far as women are concerned. We feel this, that at the present stage of the advancement of women, and in a country like our own, where the attitude toward women is in so many respects so fine and so generous, we should not be obliged to wait so long upon a piece of work that seems to us is so obviously unfair. Here we can hold up laws, concrete laws, which everyone, which even he who runs may read, can see are unjust to women. We believe that this is such an obvious thing, and a thing that can be so quickly done, that we should not devote so much of the splendid energies of women for so many years of the lives of women to its accomplishment.

There are a great many other things to be done, and we would like to see this sort of thing very quickly disposed of, so that we may go on to other things which are certainly of great importance and which are waiting to be done.

Now, we learned this through our suffrage experience, and, of course, there are many other ways in which the same lesson might have been impressed upon us; but we certainly know this from our suffrage experience that national action is more speedy in its effects than going to the States always. You must remember very well, because I believe that some members of the Judiciary Committee to-day were members of the committee when we were working on the suffrage question-you remember very well, at any rate, how the work on suffrage went on for year after year. It went on in the various States year after year, and it was not until the year 1913, I should say, that there was a real determined effort to win action in the Congress of the United States. Therefore, you might say that from 1848 to 1913 work had been going on in the various States to obtain suffrage for women in that way. Then, in 1913, this very active national effort began to win action by the Congress of the United States in regard to suffrage. In 1920 the national suffrage amendment became a part of the Constitution of the United States. Now, we believe this, that by coming to you now, we are standing in the position of securing more speedy action in wiping out the legal inequalities regarding women.

We know this, also, that there are plenty of examples before us to show that our position in this regard is right, and that we can not hope to obtain changes in the State legislatures which we can bank upon as being absolutely permanent. We know this because the thing has already occurred. We know that something that is

obtained at this session of the legislature will be very likely changed. We know that the entire principle will be changed or altered by the next session of the legislature. Therefore, if we should work only with the State legislatures in our endeavor to wipe out these inequalities, we would always be in this position, that we would not know that we would absolutely hold what we had gained. We would always be in a position of uncertainty or fear that the equality which we obtained to-day might be lost to-morrow, because of the adverse attitude of the same legislature. We know this, also, that the Constitution of the United States makes a law just as permanent as human law can be made, and we would like to see these inequalities permanently removed. We would like to see equality permanently established in this country. We have a feeling here, if you will allow the use of the word before the Judiciary Committee-we have this very solemn feeling here to-day, that we want to see that principle of equality as between men and women embodied in the Constitution of this country, so that we may know that it is in the very fundamental law of our land. We think that it is befitting the dignity of the movement, or, rather, the cause for which we are working that this should not be simply a transient thing, for this legislature or that legislature to deal with it as it may deem proper, but we feel that it should be incorporated into the very basic law of the land and recognized as the great principle on which this country is founded-that is, the principle that men and women citizens shall have equal rights under the laws of this land.

That is the reason why we have come to the Congress of the United States, and that is the reason why we have brought in this equal rights amendment which has been quoted to you, and which is now in charge of this committee. We do that because we want this thing quickly done. It seems to us that it deserves speed. We do that also because we want it permanently done. It is within your power in that way to help us.

I want to say just one word more in conclusion: I do not know what your attitude is toward the equality of women under the laws of this country, but I do believe that every one of you must recognize that the advance of woman is inevitable. Everyone of us has seen within our own generation, just within the short space of time that we have been living, a remarkable change that has taken place in the position of women, not only here in our own country but, indeed, all over the world. It is, indeed, a world-wide movement. Now, please do not think that we are in any way peculiar in standing for what we call equal rights. Miss Younger has said quite truly that we are the only national organization of women in this country which is sponsoring this particular amendment that is in your keeping; but we are just breathing to you, or just giving you something that seems to come out of the very air that we breathe. It makes no difference where you go in this world to-day, you will find that the idea that we are presenting to you to-day, equal rights for men and women, is being advanced.

Indeed, when we began work on this present phase of the equal rights movement in 1921 we found that already in seven constitutions in Europe the very principle for which we are now contending

had already been incorporated. Those principles had already been incorporated in seven European constitutions, recognizing the equality of men and women. În every one of those seven European constitutions that principle already exists, breathing that new spirit. They are constitutions that have come into existence or that have been formed in most part since the Great War, or since 1918. Therefore we are really getting before you something that is already in evidence all over the world. I think you must recognize this, that no matter what happens to-day or what happens to-morrow this thing that we are working for is absolutely certain to come to all of us somehow. It is altogether inevitable. Now this is what we can do: We can go back into the history of the advance of women and as we trace every step we find this, that every time women have asked to do something a little different or have asked to go on into paths. which they had not theretofore entered there have been objections. We must expect that; it is not at all marvelous or unnatural that that should be the case.

Now, when we are standing to-day for an even greater advance, we find those objections made, and we find things being said in regard to this movement that are just a repetition of that same old story. For instance, when women asked for the right of education, and even for primary education, it was said that if women were educated that the homes would be ruined; that little children would be neglected; and that women would no longer be good wives and mothers. Of course, it is almost unbelievable now that such things were ever said, but it is true. Again, when women went on and asked that they might be permitted to enter the professions the same old objections reared up their heads. All of you know that when the women were asking for suffrage the same old objections that had been advanced against the education of women and the same objections that had been advanced against the entrance of women into the professions were again raised to show what terrible things would come to pass if that additional recognition were given to women. Now, all of those things have come to pass, and it was absolutely inevitable that they should come to pass. Now, we are here on the threshold of another step or another advance for women-that is, for the recognition of the equality of women with men under the laws of our country, and again the same old objections are made.

You will hear them to-day and you will hear them to-morrow, and I do not know how long. The same old objections are being raised to show that this is inadvisable and undesirable. All that we can say to you is that it is a repetition; it is a repetition of history in regard to the advance of women, and just as those arguments were swept away in regard to education, and shown to be altogether futile and absurd, so will these objections be swept away. Then, when the suffrage movement was under way, how repeatedly we saw all of those arguments that had been disdained long before being advanced again. Therefore, we know that every argument that is now being advanced against the equal rights amendment will be swept away. We know that that argument is bound to be laughed out of court, and that at some time this thing must come to pass. There is one thing that we feel absolutely certain of, and we believe that each member of this committee, in his own inner consciousness,

at any rate, must feel absolutely certain of it, and that is that this principle that we are standing for and that we are presenting to you, namely, the equality of men and women in the United States, and, indeed, the recognition of that equality in the Constitution of the United States, is absolutely bound to come to pass.

I thank you.

Miss YOUNGER. Our next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Mrs. Nelson Whittemore, of Detroit, Mich. She will deal especially with the laws as they affect mothers. Mrs. Whittemore is the secretary of the Michigan branch of the National Woman's Party.

STATEMENT OF MRS. NELSON WHITTEMORE, OF DETROIT, MICH., SECRETARY OF THE MICHIGAN BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY

Mrs. WHITTEMORE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee, I have come here from Detroit, Mich., for a couple of days to attend another hearing. Truly, gentlemen, most of us felt that when we achieved the right to vote we probably would not have to appear before many more committees in hearings, but that we could go about our business, serving our families and serving our States and communities. We felt that we would not have to seek further for more fields to conquer; but in my own State, particularly, it was painfully soon apparent to all of us that there were many limitations still confronting us. There was in the small town of Redford, Mich., with which your Michigan Member, I am sure, is familiar, a fine woman, a Mrs. Patterson, who had reached middle age and who, having no special cares or duties, felt that she would like to serve that small town as justice of the peace. Her fellow citizens agreed with her and very proudly and joyfully elected her to that office.

When she appeared to attend to her duties as justice of the peace one of the very eminent attorneys of that town arose and said that in his judgment a woman could not hold office in the State of Michigan. You can imagine what a frightful blow that was to us, because that woman had been elected by her fellow townsmen to fill that office. Therefore we got together and squeezed a little money together out of our egg money, dress allowances, etc., and with that money we carried that case through the courts and finally to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that, in their opinion, a woman could hold office in Michigan. So that point was settled after several years had gone by. Then we had also to settle the matter of jury service. The question of whether women in Michigan could serve on juries had to be determined, and we trailed that question through all of the courts until it was finally decided that women in Michigan could serve on juries. And so it went with other questions of law. It was certainly a great shock to us, and we were perfectly bewildered because we found that the legal status of women in Michigan was by no means settled or stabilized.

The women of Michigan did not know what they could do, or what they could not do. Therefore, we decided that we would try to get an able opinion on the question of the legal status of women in Michigan. I spent considerable time in Detroit, trailing around

to find some friends who would help us in that matter. Many of those gentlemen said that they were very busy; that they had a world of business to attend to, with this suit and that suit pending, and that they could not take the time to look these questions up for us. However, all of them assured us that they were very certain that the conditions in Michigan were ideal for women, and that surely there were no particular discriminations against them in any way. They claimed that Michigan was really a heavenly place for women to live in. Finally, I found one friend who had aided us in the past; he said that he was terribly busy, but that he would try to take six weeks time to look up the matter for us. Then, I very quaveringly asked him about how much it would cost us. He said that he would do the best he could for us, but that he did not see how he could do it for less than $1,500. And, indeed, he could not, because he would have to set aside all of his business. Now, you can imagine what that amount meant to us. We were simply staggered. Then, gentlemen, you can imagine what a tremendous relief we felt when we learned that our legal research department in Washington was compiling all of the statutes of the State of Michigan, and was printing the compilation in this little booklet entitled, "Michigan Laws Discriminating Against Women."

One of the first things we met up with there was the proposition that mothers have not equal rights with fathers over children. We said that that could not be so, because, after a great deal of work, we got through the 1921 Michigan Legislature an equal guardianship bill. Our legal friends said that that bill was passed by the Michigan Legislature, and that we had that law. So we sent back here to the research department, and said to them, "No, our women have an equal guardianship law in Michigan." Our department here sent back the word that we had an equal guardianship law, but that it did not cover the services or earnings of minor children; that we had some guardianship but not all guardianship. Then our friends said, Perhaps that is so." They said, of course, that was a small matter, and that upon the whole we really had an equal guardianship law. Now, gentlemen, it is not such a small matter, because, aside from the earnings, we found that the law provided that in case of injury to a child suit could only be brought by the father, provided the family were living intact. That was because under the common law, under which my State operates, the father has the sole right to sue. The CHAIRMAN. If the father is the head of the family, and the family is intact, what other law would you suggest?

Mrs. WHITTEMORE. Possibly the father does not wish to sue; possibly the father and mother, while they have not been actually divorced, are not living together. Perhaps the father is living in some other part of the country and does not wish to institute the suit. The CHAIRMAN. Your statement was that the family was intact, and my question was directed to that statement.

Mrs. WHITTEMORE. It might be legally intact.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon for the interruption. Mrs. WHITTEMORE. If that law does not cover injuries, does not cover the right to institute suit in case of injury, and does not cover the earnings of children, then, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, it can not possibly be an equal guardianship law, and we have before