would secure the promise of enough votes in the Senate before the next morning session (it was then 4:30 of the afternoon) that he would ask for a suspension of rules and a vote in the Senate next morning; and if it passed, which he felt confident of, he would ask that it immediately be messaged to the Assembly. It was necessary to obtain twenty-four votes, or two-thirds of the Senate, in order to get a suspension of rules for a bill to be voted on and be immediately messaged to the Assembly; otherwise the bill would take its usual course which is indefinite in time.

Too well did we later realize the great mistake of Senator Conant's advice to attempt to rush the bill through the Senate. Now, we know full well that to try to hasten a bill through a legislative chamber immediately arouses antagonism; the members become suspicious that something is wrong with the bill, and that the reason it is being rushed through is to prevent the defect from being discovered before the bill is passed. Good reasons for attempting to hasten it only make them more suspicious.

But, being inexperienced, we took Senator Conant's advice. Mrs. Rotter and I immediately went to the Senate chamber. Working until late that evening, and again the next morning until the session opened at 9 o'clock, we secured the promise of twenty-four senators to vote for the bill.

The bill was reported out by Senator Conant. He offered amendment No. 1 S-Amend the bill by striking out the comma after the word residence and insert the words "for voting purposes" and recommended passage. Rules were suspended

and bill read a second time.

We were waiting for the bill to be passed, when one of the elder members, Senator Claire Bird, who had come in late, arose and objected to the passing of the bill in such haste. He contended that the bill had more far-reaching powers than he thought any of the members present had any idea of that it should be laid over to give every member time to study it.

And he proceeded to offer an amendment, No. 2-S, striking out the words "freedom of contract." He feared wives might be wronged by their husbands in property affairs if granted freedom of contract, meaning that a wife's endorsement on her husband's paper, hitherto worthless in law, would become binding under the proposed new law. He said, as the law then stood, a woman could not go surety on her husband's note, that she could not bind her separate estate in such a way, and he maintained that she should not be allowed to do this, that it was a protection to her for the law to prohibit her in such a way. He feared all sorts of nameless evils if the bill were to pass with the clause, "and in all other respects," included in it. He asked that the bill be laid over until Friday, May 27. He was an able lawyer and a powerful representative of great corporate interests-so the bill was laid over.

All day Thursday we talked with assemblymen. We told them the bill would be passed the next day in the Senate, and would come immediately to the Assembly. Many of them were amused at our confidence, but we felt sure of our twenty-four senators. We had not a thought that the Bird amendment would pass. But, alas for our ignorance!

The majority of the members of the Assembly Judiciary committtee, the logical committee for our bill to be referred to, had voted against the Conant jury bill, which was the bill making provision for women jurors. We did not like to trust this committee with our bill so we studied over all the Assembly committees and found that the Public Welfare committee had the largest majority of members who had voted for the Conant jury bill. Then we talked to all the members of this committee and when we found that a majority were in favor of our bill, we went to the chairman, Assemblyman Petersen, and asked him if he would like to take the leadership of this bill in the Assembly, telling him that a majority of his committee would support him. He was thoroughly in sympathy with the bill and was willing to be our Assembly leader.

We went to see Speaker Riley Young. We were very eager to get his favor, as he had much influence, and were delighted when he assured us of his support. We asked him to refer our bill to the Public Welfare committee, as soon as it reached the Assembly, telling him why we preferred that committee. This he said he would do.

We liked Speaker Young. Always calm and unhurried, his perfect manners had a most soothing effect in that maelstrom of one hundred assemblymen, some of whom were always talking or gesticulating. He is very quiet mannered, and at all times had little to say, but we always had confidence that he could be depended on. He was our friend throughout, voting consistently for our bill in the particulars we wanted, all the time it was in the Assembly.

CHAPTER XII.

A Lesson in Practical Politics.

Friday morning, in the Senate, our bill was taken up early in the session. Very quickly it was disposed of, before we could realize what had happened.

Amendment No. 1-S, the committee amendment, was adopted. This we expected.

Amendment No. 1-S, to amendment No. 2-S was offered by Senator Bird, striking out the words "freedom of contract." Now Senator Conant was offering an amendment to that, striking out the words "and in all other respects." Before we could get over our astonishment at Senator Conant's action, both amendments were adopted. Ayes 21, noes 4. Then the bill was passed unanimously by the Senate.

We were horrified. We couldn't believe it had happened.

Only four of our twenty-four promised votes had been delivered.

Two of our friends spoke against amendment No. 2-SSenator Huber and Senator Severson, and Senator Hirsch stated he would vote against it. Senator Severson especially expressed our own sentiments-that as long as women were denied freedom of contract in any respect they were kept in the class with children and idiots and all other irresponsibles, and that the average woman is as competent and as able to exercise judgment in the signing of notes as the average man. And here I want to say that since the passing of our bill, bankers have told me that the granting of complete freedom of contract to women removed a great embarrassment to them in business; women are now allowed to sign notes without giving their whole family history, and without having put to them intimate and embarrassing questions if they be divorced.

I had told Senator Conant and Senator Bird that freedom of contract included many other rights of contract besides going surety; and that it was unfair to refuse a woman the freedom of contract which she so badly needed in many other ways, because some people believed she should not be allowed to go surety.

Senator Bird was not interested in what I said he insisted it was a bad bill. Senator Conant replied that the bill might be amended "freedom of contract except in going surety," and that he would offer that amendment on Friday morning. And we, in a panic then at fear of losing all freedom of contract, had agreed to his doing this.

After the bill had been ordered engrossed and read a third time, I sent for Senator Conant, and asked him why he allowed "in all other respects" to be struck out, and why he did not offer an amendment to the "freedom of contract" clause as he had said he would. He said he forgot it. I told him the bill as engrossed would not be acceptable to us, and asked him what he was going to do about it.

He said if we could get a motion made for reconsideration of the vote on engrossment, he would try to get "freedom of contract" amended, instead of struck out.

I asked Senator Huber to move for reconsideration, which he did within a few minutes. Senator Conant then urged the reconsideration, remarking that he thought the vote was taken too hastily, but the motion was lost.

Rules were later that morning suspended, bill read a third time and passed unanimously.

Our next move must be to get the Assembly to restore the clauses which had been struck out in the Senate. And how we dreaded it! We knew it would be a hard task, and probably an impossible one in the short time before us.

At noon the legislature adjourned for Decoration Day until the following Wednesday, June 1.

On my return to Milwaukee on Friday night the following letters awaited me.

United States Senate, May 19, 1921.

My dear Mrs. Putnam:

Your telegram of the 18th has just been received.

You doubtless are aware of the fact that the reactionaries are in control of the legislature, but I have today taken this matter up with friends at Madison, and I am certain they will be glad to give their co-operation.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE.

United States Senate, May 19, 1921.

Dear Mrs. Putnam:

I have your wire of the 18th instant and in reply will say that I wish you would send me a copy of the bill referred to.

You are, of course, aware of my position upon woman's rights, but I would not undertake to urge the passage of any bill, the provisions of which I have not seen.

Very sincerely,

I. L. LENROOT.

I immediately mailed to Senator Lenroot a copy of the bill.