homas of Colorado; Owen of Oklahoma; Clapp of Minnesota;
Smoot of Utah; Kern of Indiana; Lea of Tennessee and Ashurst of
Arizona. "They unanimously agreed with us," she said, "that it would
be of great educational value to have the question brought up before
the Senate during the present session, as there had never been a
debate on the question of woman suffrage in Congress."[86]

Mrs. McCormick told how the amendment had been put on the calendar as
unfinished business and discussed daily at 2 o'clock for ten days
until the vote was taken March 19, 1914, when it received 35 ayes, 34
noes, a majority but not the necessary two-thirds. A change of 11
votes would have carried it and more than half of the absentees were
known to be in favor but these facts did not give her any faith in the
amendment. "During the canvassing of the Senate," she said, "we were
more and more impressed with the necessity of meeting the State's
rights argument and felt more and more keenly the barrier of the State
constitutions in advancing our cause. An analysis of these
constitutions proved most illuminating and in arguing with the
Senators upon this point they constantly reiterated the general idea
of submitting this question, as well as other big national questions,
to the decision of the people. We also discovered at this time that
there were seven or eight different amendments before Congress on the
woman suffrage question. For example, there is a bill giving us the
right to vote for Presidential electors. There is another bill giving
us the right to vote for Senators and Congressmen, etc....[87] A
general canvass of the Lower House and also the action of the
Democratic caucus convinced us in an even more pronounced way that we
are blocked by the State's rights doctrine." The report continued:

It was at this time that Mrs. Funk, Mrs. Booth and myself
interpreted our duty as a committee to mean that we were
appointed not only for the purpose of national propaganda and for
the promotion of the Bristow amendment but that our duty was a
more extensive one and required us to meet whatever political
emergency might arise during our term of office. We, therefore,
set about to originate a new form of amendment to the U. S.
Constitution which would meet the State's rights argument, if
such a thing were possible. As Mrs. Funk is a lawyer, Mrs. Booth
and I agreed that it was most important for her to