ction and a fair count in West Virginia,
it is possible, even probable, that woman suffrage would have been
defeated, but the fact remains that no human being can know that,
since the amendment went down to defeat in an election that can only
be described as "The Shame of West Virginia."

In all three states the pending amendments were caught in the toils
of the "wet and dry" issue. The "wets" obsessed by the idea that woman
suffrage is "next door to prohibition" used their entire machinery
to defeat the amendments, while the "drys" regarded the amendments as
distinctly separate questions. These conditions may be regarded as
the inevitable hazards of a campaign. It is, however, not at all clear
that the amendments were defeated in any one of the three states
by the honest "will of the majority." In none of them were women
permitted to serve as watchers over their amendment. In Iowa well
established proof of wilful or careless violations of laws throws
doubt over the returns, while in West Virginia the suspicion of fraud
rests upon the entire election. In Iowa four and in South Dakota nine
counties colonized by people of foreign birth or parentage deprived
the women of the state of their vote.

A Federal amendment ratified by the legislatures of the several states
would secure to the women of South Dakota and Iowa the rights for
which American and Americanized men have voted. The entire western
or most American part of South Dakota has been twice carried for
suffrage, that is, in 1914 and 1916. One county, Harding, adjacent to
Wyoming, has been carried for woman suffrage in the six referenda on
the question, the first one being held in 1890.

The only real argument against the Federal amendment thus far advanced
is that one group of states which want woman suffrage may force it
upon another group which does not want it. That argument works both
ways. _A group of counties_ which want woman suffrage may be deprived
of it for years because another group of un-Americanized, foreign-born
citizens do not want it. The first is said to be the principle of
"American sovereignty," the second may fairly be called the principle
of "foreign sovereignty."

CHAPTER V.

FEDERAL ACTION AND STATE RIGHTS

HENRY WADE ROGERS

Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, New York City,
and Professor in the Yale University School of Law.

I do not propose to discuss the subject of woman suffrage in the
abstract. I am