snewpapers
TONOPAH BRANCH NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY
Tonopah, Nev., Sept. 27, 1916.
Mrs. Mae B. V. Packer, Manhattan, Nevada.
Dear Madam:-
I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, and this would be sufficient, probably, had not you or some one else attempted to make political capital out of it by having it published.
It closes by saying, "I hope you'll not consider me rude." Though its tone no doubt led you to thus accuse yourself, we shall acquit you of the charge and merely say—not rude, but sentimental, impulsive, mistaken, and unreasoning.
The second paragraph proclaims your loyalty to the "President who has stood like a Stone Wall for the best interests of this country in one of her extremest hours of need." What extreme hour of need is it to which you refer? Was it the hour of need when the Lusitania multiple murder was committed? If it was, which best interests of the country did Woodrow Wilson stand for? We confess that we are unable to even guess what extreme hour of need you are talking about. Some of the most serious hours of need were those preceding August 1, 1914, when business was going to the dogs under the blighting influence of the Underwood Tariff Act, a Wilson Democratic measure. There have been hours of need along the Mexican border too in the past three years, and dire hours of need among the Americans in Mexico. Where was your "Stone Wall" then?
And that trite old simile, "stood like a Stone Wall." Were you not unfortunate in your choice of a figure of speech? Stonewall Jackson was not a man of mere words; he was not "too proud to fight": he was not given to "watchful waiting." and he did not back out in dishonor from the numerous tight places in which he found himself. Stone walls are not built of jelly fish even on the sea coast, where that material is plentiful and cheap. Did you not mean a Worm Fence instead of a Stone Wall? One whose parts each point in a different direction and which would get nowhere but for outside influence to correct its course at every point?
Being the school teacher that you are, your third paragraph deals with ratio. You compare the four million members of the Woman's Party with the population of the United States and get one-twenty-fifth for an answer. And then immediately follows: "I am • • • an American Citizen and stand for the interests of the entire population, men, women and children." That is remarkable indeed. In the one paragraph we find that the Woman's Party stands for only one twenty-fifth, but you stand for the "entire population." You must have suddenly forgotten your problem in ratio.
Your next two paragraphs seem to contain about the only clue to the meaning of your letter, something about a man who "will unhesitatingly plunge the country into war." Do you know of any man in our scheme of government who has that power? By referring to Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States you will find that power to declare war is reserved to Congress, which is composed of not one man but of over five hundred. Congress never "unhesitatingly plunged" the country into anything but that astonishing political makeshift, the recent so-called Eight hour Bill, which, after all, is no exception to the general rule of hesitation, since it amounts to nothing in reality, and that nothing decidedly shallow.
What is this argument of yours any way? Is it that if the women of the country do the best they can to secure suffrage, they will thereby plunge the country into war? How do you make that out? What connection is there between the Susan B. Anthony amendment and war? Is it possible that you mean the defeat of Wilson and the election of Hughes will plunge this country into war? If that is what you are driving at, will you kindly name the country with which this war is to be?
If you mean Germany, it might be well for you to read pages 150, 151
(Continued on Page 3.)
PRO-WILSON ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED
(Continued from Page 2.)
... and 186 of WORLD'S WORK for June, 1916, where you will learn that mere good old-fashioned American firmness has been all that was needed in dealing with that nation on a number of occasions.
Is it not possible for you to understand that while the present European conflict is under way, this nation can have no actual war with Germany because of the "iron ring" that surrounds that country and its allies, and which is getting tighter every day? We cannot get near Germany or Germany near us until that war is ended, when Germany, now like the insolent dog within the fence, will be much less truculent.
As to Mexico, we are now at war with that country in the matter of expense, hardship, and even occasional fighting. We have more soldiers on the border than it took once to conquer Mexico, and the invasion of that country has actually begun in ...
On this point, that of war, we stand ready to show the utter inconsistency of Wilson's attitude with reference to Mexico, Germany and Japan.
In your sixth paragraph you seem to condemn "Tammany practice." We wonder why, because your hero, Wilson, is strenuously seeking Tammany's support, practice and all, at the present moment.
Your seventh paragraph says: "If the Woman's vote shows conservative dignity and strength, they'll get the vote from their own states, where it is more credit to them." We confess we are at a loss here to understand you. "If the Woman's vote shows... they'll get the vote from their own states." How can they get the vote where they have it, and how can their vote show anything where they have it not? And which are their own states? Is the conservatism you speak of that failure to assert themselves and demand their rights that has marked womankind for untold centuries? Is there any dignity in servility?
Right here we ask you if you are a Democrat because your father was or your husband is? If so, what dignity or strength are you exhibiting? If you are a Democrat because you have deliberately and thoughtfully adopted that party's principles, will you kindly tell us in plain English which of those principles appeal to you? We are without a party of the usual kind, and wish to be freely informed in order to choose one safely.
You close by criticising Hughes for vetoing the Teachers' Pension Bill when he was Governor of New York. Do you know the exact facts concerning that veto? Many vetos are the result of the advice of Attorney Generals upon the Constitutionality of Acts or legal defects in them. A pension bill may easily get over the line.
But, suppose he did and thereby committed a grave error, what human being has not? And how does this compare with Wilson's eight changes of mind about the embargo on arms, ammunition, cannon and military supplies at the Mexican border, four of which decisions must have been wrong if the other four were right, because direct opposites?
And how does it compare with Wilson's selection of cabinet officers, Bryan, a self-confessed failure as Secretary of State; Lansing, who has proved himself to be merely a juggler with words in his numerous notes; Daniels, celebrated Naval clown; Burleson, exploiter of convict labor, etc.? What greater menace can there be to this country's welfare than a political trickster at the head of its affairs, vacillating, uncertain, unsteady, and surrounded by incompetent advisers? As you have talked only of what Mr. Wilson has done, we are pointing out what we see that he has not done.
In conclusion, we respectfully request that if you attempt to answer our numerous questions, you give your authority for your facts. Mere assertions are not argument. We are ready with our facts.
Yours very truly, (Mrs.) MABEL DAVIS Chairman, Tonopah Branch, National Woman's PartyAmerican Stories
ToNopAH BRANCH
| NAIlONAl4 MOMAN . PART1 Tonopah. New, Sept "a. 1916.
Mrs Mae b. V. Packer.
Manhattan, Nevada.
Dear Madam
| acknowledge the receipt of your | letter of the nth instant, and this would be sufficient. probably. had not you or some one else attempted to
make political capital out of 1t by having IT published.
1t closes by saying, II hope you'll not consider me rude" Though its
tone no doubt led you to thus accuse yourself, we shall acquit you of the charge and merely say--not rude but
sentimental. impulsive. mistaken. and unreasoning
The second paragraph proclaims your loyalty to the president who has
stood like a Stone Wall for the best | interests OF this country In one of her EXTREMIST hours of need" What
extreme hour OF need is 1t to which you refer? Was II the hour of need when the Lusitanla multiple murder was committed? IL II was which best interests OF the country did Woodrow Wilson stand for? We confess that we are unable TO even guess what ex-
IRENE hour OF need you are talking
about Some OF the most serious
hours OF need were those preceding
August !. 1914. when business was
going TO the dogs under the blighting
influence of the Underwood Tariff Act. "A Wilson Democratic measure. There
have been hours of need along the
Mexican border too la the past three years and dire hours OF need among the Americans In Mexico Where was your stone Walw Them
And that trite old smile. stood like stone Wall" Were you not unfortunate Ira your choice OF hgure VI speech Stonewall Jacksnn was not a man OF mere words he was not "tOO proud to nght". he was not given to 'watuhfal waiting" aud he did not back out In dish0nor from the numer-
Gus tight places in which he found
hlmself. Stone walls are not built of Jelly fish even on the sea coast, where that material is plentiful and cheap. Did you not mean a Worm Fence
instead of a Stone Wall? One whose
parts each point in a different direc- ton and which would get nowhere but
Tor outside influence to correct its | course at every point?
Being the school teacher that you are, your third paragraph deals with ratio. You compare the four million members of the Womans Party with the population of the United States and get one-twenty- fifth for an an
swer. And then Immediately follows: Il am an American Citizen
and stand for the interests of the entire population. men, women and children. That Is remarkable indeed
In the one paragraph we find that the Woman's Party stands for only one twenty ffth. but you stand for the
entire population" You must have
suddenly forgotten your problem in ratio.
| Your next two paragraphs seem to | contain about the only clue to the | meaning of your letter. something
about man who will unhestatingly
plunge the country into war" Do you know or any man in our scheme of | government who has that power? BY | referring to Section of Article | of | the Constitution of the United States | you VIII find that power to declare war is reserved to Congress, which Is composed of not one man but of over five hundred Congress never ''un- hesitatingly plunged" the country into anything but that astonishing political makeshift the recent so-called Eight hour Bill, which. after all, is no ex-
ception to the general rule of hesita-
ton. since 1t amounts to nothing In
reality, and that nothing decidedly shallow.
What is this argument of yours any way? Is 1t that If the women of the country do the best they can to secure ! suffrage, they Will thereby plunge the | country into war? How do you make | that out? What connection is there between the Susan b. Anthony amend | ment and war? Is II possible that | you mean the defeat of Wilson and the eleetion of Hughes will plunge this country into war? If that is what you are driving at, will you
kindly name thef country with which this war is to be-
II you mean Germany, 1t might be
wen for you to read pages $50, ISL
CONTINUED on Page 81
PRO.W|LSONARGUMENIS
ARE ANSWERED
Continued from Page 81
and 1856 Of WORLDS WORK for June, 1916, where you will learn that mere good ld-fashioned American firmness has been all that was needed in deal Ing with that nation on number of occasions.
Is II not possible for you to under stand that while the present European conflict Is under way, this nation can have no actual war with Germany be- cause of the Iron ring that sur rounds that country and its a HES, and which is getting tighter every day. We cannot get near Germany or Ger many near us until that war is ended, when Germany, now like the insolent dog within the fence. VIII be much less truculent
As to Mexico, we are now at war with that country in the matter of expense. hardship, and even occa- sional lighting. We have more SOL dlers on the border than 1t took once to conquer Mexico. and the invasion
on this point. that of war we stand ready to show the utter Inconsistency of Wilson's attitude with reference to Mexico, Germany and Japan.
In your sixth paragraph you seem to condemn "Tammany practice" We wonder why. because your hero, VIII son, is strenuously seeking Tam manys support, practice and all, at the present moment
Your seventh paragraph says If the Womans vote shows conservative dignity and strength. they'li get the vote from their own states, where IL Is more credit to thsm' We confess we are at loss here to understand you "If the Womans vote shows : they'll get the vote from their own states" How can they get the vote where they have ~. and how can their
vote show anything where they have ~ not ANA which are their own states Is the conservatism you speak OF that failure to assert themselves ana demand their rights that has marked womankind for untold cen servility?
Right here we ask you If you are d democrat because your father was or your husband is? If so, what dig my OF strength are you exhibiting? a you are Democrat because you nave deliberately and thoughtfully adopted that partys principles, will you klndly tell us in plain English which OF those principles appeal to your We are without a party of the usual Kind, and wish to be freely informed In order to choose one safely.
You close by criticising Hughes for vetoing the Teachers Pension Bill when he was Governor of New York DO you know the exact facts concern ing that veto? Many vetos are the result or the advice Of Attorney Generals upon the Constitutionality OF Acts or legal defects in them A pension bill may easily get over the line
But, suppose he did and thereby committed grave error, what human being has not2 And how does this compare with Wilson's eight changes of mind about the embargo on arms ammunition, cannon and military sup piles at the Mexican border, four of which decisions must have been wrong II the other four were right, because direct opposites?
And how does II compare with Wilson's selection of cabinet officers, Bryan, a self-confessed failure as Secretary OF State; Lansing, who has proved himself to be merely Juggler with words in his numerous notes Daniels. celebrated Naval clown: Burleson, exploiter Of convict labor, etcY What greater menace can there be to this country's welfare than a political trickster at the head of its AFFAIRS, vacillatlng, uncertain. un- steady, and surrounded by incompetent advisers? AS you have talked only OF what Mr.. Wilson has DONE we are pointing out what we see that he has not done
In conclusion, we respectfully re- quest that If you attempt to answer our numerous questions, you give your authority for your facts Mere asser- tons are not argument We are ready with our facts.
Yours very truly,
(Mrs) MABEL DAVIS. Chairman. Tonopah Branch,
National Woman's Party