mum rate of wages for women to be constitutional, while Justice Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler, holding to their firm views, dissented and held the statues to be unconstitutional as being an illegal interference with the liberty of contract. It is interesting to note that Mr. Justice Roberts apparenly changed his views from the decision in the Morehead case to the decision in the West Coast case. We mention the closeness of these decisions in order to show the very nearly even division of the Court on this important question. Such a situation requires, we submit, a constitutional amendment in order to clarify this question.

It is apparent, therefore, that so long as the doctrine in the West Coast case is sustained, discriminatory legislation between men and women will be upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is true that most, if not all, of this legislation was passed as being in favor of women, but if the legislatures can pass laws ostensibly discriminating in favor of women it may well be that such laws actually are harmful to women. As a matter of fact, it is earnestly contended that all such discriminatory legislation is really hurtful to women. The laws fixing minimum rates of wages for women, the laws fixing maximum hours of labor for women, and like legislation have a tendency to drive women out of business and to give the jobs which they would otherwise occupy to men. This is, of course, really harmful to women. We submit that in the long run it is vastly to the interests of women, as it is to men, to have their rights equal. If it is unhealthy for women to work more than a certain number of hours it is almost certainly unhealthful for men to work more than that number of hours. Working conditions unfavorable to the health of women are sure to be unfavorable to the health of men. It is far better to pass legislation making general provisions or restricting the hours of labor for fixing minimum rates of wages and for regulating working conditions for all workers whether

men or women.

POINT IV

It will be seen, therefore, that neither the fourteenth amendment nor the nineteenth amendment nor the hoped-for attitude of the Supreme Court forbidding discrimination as being unconstitutional afford any substantial relief for this discrimination as between men and women, and the only relief, therefore, must come from a constitutional amendment.

The fourteenth and nineteenth amendments have already proven inadequate to remedy this discrimination. The tendency of the Supreme Court which looked hopeful in that direction has been balked and thwarted by the decision in the West Coast case. There is no hope now except in a constitutional amendment.

POINT V

Although it is unnecessary to stress the contention that these discriminations still exist in spite of the greater enlightenment of modern times, nevertheless, we will call a few instances of discrimination to the attention of the subcommittee.

The rights of fathers are superior to those of mothers.
Married women's disabilities.

The double standard of morals.

Husband collects damages for loss of wife's services.

Women denied political equality with men.

Women discriminated against with regard to employment.

Women excluded from jury service.

Special restrictions prevail for women workers.

An examination will disclose an amazing condition of unjust and wicked discrimination against women still existing in the laws of the different States. It is to remedy this injustice that the enactment of this constitutional amendment is desired.

It is true that the language of an amendment is broad in its scope. This is necessary because it covers a broad field. The evil which it seeks to remedy is broad in its extent. The language of the amendment would permit congressional statutes to insure equal rights for men and women throughout the United States. It is necessary to give Congress this power in order that it may cope with this situation. It is no objection that the language of the amendment is broad and general.

Certainly in view of the world situation, it is most important for our great democracy to get a firm decision on this question of equal rights. The totalitarian governments frankly avow their determination to reduce women to a most abject and humiliating dependency.

!།?

EQUA

k.

56

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

It is true that there will be a period of adjustment during which the provisions of this amendment must be worked out and applied by our State legislatures and by our Federal and State courts. This has been done in the case of all the other amendments. It can and should be done again. The essential question to be considered is this: Does the object of this amendment justify its enactment? Of course, there should be no amendment to the Constitution unless there is a real and urgent necessity therefor. Every amendment requires legislation for its enforcement and court action for its interpretation. Such legislative and court procedure causes delay, expense, and uncertainty. Is the game worth the candle? We submit that there can be no more important object than to secure equal rights to all our citizens, men, and women alike. The present discrimination against women permitted by our laws is by far the most serious defect in our governmental system. It is the most disgraceful blot upon our claims for democratic equality. All the arguments that were used in favor of female suffrage apply with added force to this argument. To grant equal rights to women to vote was only one of the equal rights to which women were entitled. It was a great step forward, but it was, after all, merely a step in a long progress toward equality of rights. The passage of this amendment will bring us to the top of the hill from which we can survey the land in which equal justice is rendered and equal rights accorded to all its citizens.

MARCH 9, 1948.

To the Members of the Subjudiciary Committee, House of Representatives.
GENTLEMEN: The Albany County, N. Y., branch of the National Woman's Party
wish to call your attention to the fact that since the first equal rights convention
was held at Seneca Falls, N. Y., in 1948, many women have lived out their lives
and died without the justice of equal rights.

Now, 100 years later, we urge your committee to report favorably on the equal
rights amendment, and to work for its passage in the House of Representatives
so that it may be put before the States for action.
Respectfully submitted.

Mrs. ELIZABETH M. HINE,
Albany County Chairman, National Woman's Party.

STATEMENT BY CATHERINE R. DOBBS

Young women throughout the Nation today are viewing the status of women in industry, in the armed services, in the responsibilities of the modern home, ever mindful in various States of many remnants of common law relating to women which are entirely out of tune with democratic government. Many millions of young adult women throughout the Nation-unorganized-realize their voice means so little against organized lobbying because democracy is a form of government under which we have to persuade the largest number of persons to do anything in particular.

The young adult women take a certain pride and have shown they could do a hard job in time of war without any coaxing. A fact is fixed in the minds of the average young woman and young man (although many young men and women are absent from native soil, fighting for their country) that the true function and efficiency of constitutional law is not made more valid by being written, but only more explicit, it is not rendered more sacred, but more definite and secure. All must depend upon the men and women who become Congressmen, Senators, Governors, and so forth; and upon the people over whom they are set in authority. The young women of the Nation realize we possess, therefore, not a more suitable constitution than other countries, but a constitution which is perfectly definite and which is preserved by very formidable difficulties of amendments against inconsiderate change.

The young adult women in the Nation today, in every walk of life, are following the airplane and not the covered wagon. Their patience will achieve more than their force. In this time of war, young women are looking to Congress for examples of statesmenship, looking for men and women in Congress of common opinions and uncommon abilities. So it is most natural for the young adults to appeal-although their voice may not be heard-to the uncommon abilities of the Judiciary Subcommittee for the passage of the equal rights amendment.

STATE

Dr. Florence Sabin, a staf Besearch since 1925, previous versity and a physician of emi I hope for a favorable rep

STA

I have been thinking a good nere I think about it the mo en a nation's people are g tae and female that men a Fber and with justice toward erber favorable or unfavorab not have as a matter of cour 2. Len suffer with them. Beght and action when she Sching of her sense of infe ther or to make him feel fal periority, mere sex. Wher ally with men, with a me on no more hampered than it means that half of the Natio Werk the bearing of children

as such affects the whole. It is as a mother even mor ere the Lucretia Mott a etizership in a true democrac

STATEMENT BY DR. FLORENCE SABIN

Dr. Florence Sabin, a staff member of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research since 1925, previously professor of histology at the Johns Hopkins University and a physician of eminent achievement, telegraphed on February 8, 1938: "I hope for a favorable report on the equal-rights amendment."

STATEMENT BY PEARL BUCK

I have been thinking a good deal about the Lucretia Mott amendment, and the more I think about it the more confirmed I am in my conviction that it is only when a nation's people are governed by laws made for its citizens and not for male and female that men and women can live in mutual happiness with each other and with justice toward each other. When one sex is given discrimination, either favorable or unfavorable, the effect works ill for everyone. If women do not have as a matter of course an equivocally equal place with men before the law, men suffer with them. A mother cannot train her son in the vigor of free thought and action when she herself does not share completely in that freedom. Something of her sense of inferiority shadows him to weaken him in his own moral fiber or to make him feel falsely superior on that utterly untenable ground for superiority, mere sex. When woman does not share in the life of the Nation equally with men, with a mental atmosphere as clear as his, and the right to action no more hampered than man's by discriminatory laws and social attitudes, it means that half of the Nation and the half which has as its peculiarity important work the bearing of children and their early education is a depressed group, and as such affects the whole.

It is as a mother even more than as a professional worker that I say that I believe the Lucretia Mott amendment is the only self-respecting basis for citizenship in a true democracy.

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE HEPBURN

In the theater there is complete equality between men and women.

If that has worked well for the theater, why not for all other walks of life? That is why I support the equal-rights amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

"Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction."

STATEMENT OF GLADYS SWARTHOUT

Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to tell you how strongly I feel about the necessity of the passage of the equal-rights amendment.

The inequities which are possible in the present dual status are increasingly deplorable, as women are coming to be more and more important in every phase of our national life.

You have my heartiest support for any steps which may be taken to secure the inclusion of this amendment in our Constitution.

STATEMENT OF HELEN HAYES

Women of America are magnificently sharing equal responsibilities with men. They should also share equal rights before the law.

It seems to me that now, more than ever, it is imperative for Congress to pass the equal-rights amendment. Women, in order to give greater service in this crucial period, must be freed from the legal restrictions that now handicap them.

STATEMENT OF JANE NORMAN SMITH

Although thousands of women wage earners had been thrown out of employment when the no-night-work law for women went into effect in New York,

while the legislative campaign for an equal status for women in the common law was under way, some of the present opponents of the equal-rights amendment had introduced in the legislatures of New York and other State 8-hour-day, 48-hour-week, and minimum-wage legislation applying to women but not to men. The 48-hour-week bill applied to business as well as to factory women, and therefore every important organization of businesswomen in the State of New York joined with industrial workers and the National Woman's Party in a demand that the bills be amended to apply to all workers and not to women alone, their well-founded contention being that under the proposed laws adult women would be linked with children and placed in a class apart in industry, and unable to compete with adult men workers. The demands of women workers who were to be affected by the laws were ignored and the bills became law. Years ago, some leaders of the protectionist groups would say: "Theoretically, you are right. We, too, believe that labor laws should apply to all workers, men and women alike, but the United States Supreme Court would not hold laws regulating the hours and wages of men constitutional." Since then, the Federal Woges and Hours Act, applying to all workers, has been held constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

STATEMENT OF MARGARET CULKIN BANNING

The National Woman's Party has long been doing work for all women without the support of all women. The injustice of this is obvious, especially as it permits those who are hostile to equal rights for women to assume that lack of active support means indifference or antagonism to the aim of the Woman's Party. For that reason it is a matter of duty and of clarity to say, as I am proud to do, that the basic aim of the National Woman's Party has been one of the central aims of my entire life, and that I am deeply grateful for the work which they have done and are doing to further equal rights for women.

STATEMENT BY THE LATE DR. M. CAREY THOMAS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF BRYN MAWR COLLEGE

After having given the most careful consideration of which I am capable to the present legal and industrial disabilities of American women and also to what I am convinced will be the beneficial after effects of the equal-rights amendment now before Congress, I have reached the conclusion that it ought to be supported by every woman's organization and by every individual woman in the United States.

We women of the older and of the present generation must combine together to make sure by passing the equal-rights amendment that all women throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction shall have equal legal and industrial rights with men to their children, to work, paid by the job, and not by the sex of the workers, and the pursuit of happiness.

STATEMENT OF AGNES E. WELLS

When a woman's own career, her property rights, or her individual rights are restricted or denied, she fully realizes the disasters that threaten her in the hard times of readjustment that lie ahead unless she has the equal protection of the law.

Thousands of these university women are members of the great national organizations of women which have worked for years for the equal-rights amendment. These organizations represent a complete cross section of American womanhood, from the lowliest workers to the career women of achievement, from the humblest to the most effluent homes.

There are, however, several large organizations of women which have taken an official stand against the amendment-many of them merely by vote of their central committees and not by democratic action of the membership. Sentiment among our members is practically unanimous on the need of women for equality of rights under the law, but is sharply divided on the question of method for its attainment.

The first "protective legislation for women" was proposed in 1836 by the New England Association of Farmers and Mechanics and Other Workingmen, when the factory system was being introduced in the United States, and was frankly designed by them to restrict the competition of women with men, not to lighten the burdens of women. This resolution read: "Whereas labor is a physical and moral injury to women and a competitive menace to men, we recommend legislation to restrict women in industry."

Most of the laws passed in the last 30 years for the protection of women have been set aside for the past war in order to utilize the talents and skills of women in war work. Women were needed for night work in industry, for welding, riveting, heavy foundry work, and in hundreds of other fields which were formerly entirely closed to women, or in which the work of women was sharply restricted by legislation. Federal regulations now cover war industries and are enforced without regard to sex.

Industrial experiences during the past war have taught two great lessons: First, that most of the laws that formerly protected women only are needed equally by both men and women; and, second, that many other laws that formerly restricted the labor of women are wholly unnecessary.

The women who pioneered in protective legislation for women only blazed trails for the protection of both men and women, and it is now generally agreed that in future all protective legislation should be passed on the nature of the work, not on the sex of the worker.

STATEMENT BY THE LATE AMELIA EARHART, FAMOUS AMERICAN AVIATRIX

Today women still stand victims of restrictive class legislative and of conflicting interpretation of statutes. To clear the situation, their right must be made theirs by definition—that is, by constitutional guaranty. Therefore, I hope that this year may bring us at least one step nearer the equal-rights amendment.

MESSAGE FROM HELEN KELLER

Glad to sponsor equal-rights amendment. Cordial wishes for success.

STATEMENT BY ETHEL ERNEST MURRELL

The National Association of Women Lawyers endorsed an amendment to equalize the legal status of men and women as early as July 16, 1935.

Again, meeting in convention, the association voted its complete approval of the principles involved and went on record as urging Congress to pass immediately the amendment as it had been reworded by Senator Warren R. Austin, of Vermont.

It is the consensus of the women lawyers belonging to this association that until American women shall be invested with full constitutional status, which means complete and absolute citizenship, all State laws, or for that matter national laws, which are passed to better their conditions will be insecure. If, as at present, women cannot invoke the protection of the Constitution of the United States, their rights are at the mercy of every passing legislature or directive board.

Therefore, this group considers the primary interest of all American women may best be served through according them full citizenship, and the National Association of Women Lawyers wishes to go on record as urging that only through passage of an amendment to the Constitution can this be accomplished.

STATEMENT BY DEAN MARY SINCLAIR CRAWFORD

In our far Western States we have great organizations supporting this amendment-women of every type. Members of unions, professional women, and unskilled women who are for the first time out in the fields of industry. For in

74402-48- -5