ters from the Governor, from Senator Lenroot, from prominent women in the state.

Finally a move was made by our chief opponent for nonconcurrence in the bill. We held our breath while the vote was taken, and when it was announced-ayes 38, noes 42, paired 2, our relief was so great it almost hurt. Saved by only four votes, but yet enough to save it! The bill was then ordered to a third reading, ayes 46, noes 34, paired 2.

I quote from The Capital Times, Madison, a rather good report of the discussion, which also explains some of the opposition to us:

The Women's Rights bill was passed in the Assembly on Friday in the form demanded by the women. The house, after two hours of debate, refused to kill the bill by a vote of 42 to 38. The measure was then advanced 46 to 34. The House, by a vote of 52 to 19, incorporated an amendment by Petersen giving women "the freedom of contract." This provision was originally stricken out in the Senate.

Assemblyman A. E. Matheson led the fight against the measure. The principal speech for the bill was made by Assemblyman George Nelson of Polk county. The Higgins substitute amendment, which would have given women "suffrage rights and the right to serve on juries" was denounced as a "joker" and killed by a 67 to 8 vote.

As advanced the bill declares that: "Women shall
have the same rights and privileges under the law as men
in the exercise of suffrage, freedom of contract, choice of
residence, jury service, holding office, holding and convey-
ing property, care and custody of children and in all other
respects."

"This bill will lead to endless confusion in the courts,"
said Assemblyman Matheson. "This bill declares that
women shall have the same rights as men.
Under the pres-
ent law in many respects women have a 'larger' right and
I am wondering what legal effect this bill will have. This
bill is a mere camouflage. This legislature should appoint
an interim committee to investigate this subject and report
a real bill to the next legislature. I want to give women
the legislation they desire, but I do not believe they want

this bill. There are three pillars of state-religion, educa-
tion and the home, and of these the home is the greatest of
all. In the home the mother is the center. Our civilization
is tottering and crumbling and I think we should go slow in
passing legislation of this kind. This bill will result in
coarsening the fiber of woman-it takes her out of her
proper sphere."

Assemblyman George Nelson said that this bill was
simple in its terms and was the measure which the women
of the State desired. He believed that it should pass.

Before the rejection of the Higgins substitute, Mr. Higgins read a letter purporting to come from the League of Women Voters of Milwaukee asking that the terms of the bill be restricted. The Higgins amendment was killed.

Each of the Milwaukee members has received from Mrs. A. J. Rogers, legislative chairman, Milwaukee County League of Women Voters, the following letter: "We understand that 484-S, the Women's Rights bill, is to be voted on in the Assembly Tuesday. The League of Women Voters hopes that it will be amended to provide for jury service only, in which case we urge its passage. Our position is that jury service is closely associated with voting citizenship, while neither women nor the public generally are ready for the other provisions of 484-S."

Mrs. Frank Putnam, Wisconsin chairman, National Woman's Party, said: "Some women are chiefly interested in jury service, some in freedom of contract, some in choice of residence, some in holding office, some in holding and conveying property, some in care and custody of children.

"It would be unfair to a majority of Wisconsin women to pass a bill granting only that right in which one group of women are especially interested. Our bill had to be made broad enough to serve the needs of all groups. Even in the League of Women Voters all of the clauses of our bill have earnest advocates.

"We do not believe the League as an organization will wish to assume responsibility to the women of Wisconsin for opposing the grant of any of the rights which the pending bill would confer upon us."

The bill was placed on the calendar for the following Wednesday, June 15. We were jubilant. We had won a real victory.

CHAPTER XVI.

Preparing for the Final Vote in the Assembly.

Our work now was to see that we lost none of the votes we had gained, and to get a few more. Some of our opponents had been absent on Friday; they would doubtless be present at the next and final Assembly vote, and some of our friends had warned us to be on guard.

During the week-end we sent out the following bulletin to the newspapers and the legislators:

MADISON, Wis., June 14.-Public endorsement by Senators Lenroot and La Follette and by Governor Blaine has greatly strengthened the campaign of Wisconsin women for the pending women's rights bill. They are now confident it will become law at this session of the legislature.

The bill, as proposed by the women, granted them "the same rights and privileges under the laws as men in the exercise of suffrage, freedom of contract, choice of residence for voting purposes, jury service, holding office, holding and conveying property, care and custody of children and in all other respects."

The Senate passed the bill unanimously the last week in May, first striking out the "freedom of contract" and "in all other respects" clauses.

The Assembly restored those clauses and passed the bill to engrossment by a vote of 46 to 34 last Friday. The bill will come up for final passage in the Assembly tomorrow and its passage by a safe majority is regarded as certain. The Senate will then be asked to pass the bill as amended by the Assembly.

Mrs. Frank Putnam of Milwaukee, Wisconsin chairman, National Woman's Party, speaking for the advocates of the bill, said:

"Fifty per cent of the voters of Wisconsin are women. Men who imagine women do not want equality with men

under the laws are mistaken. Men who think women voters
will not use their ballots to win equality under the law are
mistaken. A large majority of women are far more deeply
interested in gaining equal legal rights with men than they
were in gaining equal suffrage. Their long fight for equal
suffrage was only a means to this end-that they might
use their ballots to enforce equality with men under the
laws of State and Nation.

"The Assembly having gone on record for us, the fate
of the Women's Bill of Rights is now in the hands of the
state senators. A very large majority of them were elected
as Republicans, in large part by women voters, on a plat-
form pledging them to grant equal legal rights to women.

"Whatever their personal prejudices, they are bound in honor by their party's pledge, and by simple justice as representatives of the women of Wisconsin as well as of the men, to vote for this bill. Their failure to vote for it would be a shocking violation of their party's public promise when it sought our votes, and an unforgettable affront to the self-respect of every woman voter in this State.

"We shall demand a roll call, so that Wisconsin women, in every senatorial district, may know whether their senator represents all of the voters, or only 50 per cent of them."

Also during the week-end I called on Rev. Herbert C. Noonan, president, Marquette College and Law School, one of the largest Roman Catholic colleges in the country, to get his opinion of the bill. He said the Equal Rights Bill had been discussed in the Law School with much interest as a move to restore to woman the rights she had under the Roman law, and which had been taken away from her under the English Common law. He said he had not believed in woman suffrage, but did not think this bill came under the same classification as woman suffrage. That, insofar as he had studied the bill, which had not been to any great extent, he approved of it-for regardless of the right of suffrage, a woman should have legal rights which controlled her person, her children, her home and her property. He believed women should have the right to sit

on juries provided the proper provisions were made for mixed juries.

I was very glad to get these favorable comments from President Noonan, as I believed they would help to correct the belief of some legislators, which I knew to be erroneous, that the Roman Catholic church is less liberal than other religious bodies in its attitude toward the rights of women. Some time previous to this we had sought and obtained the approval and support, for the bill, of Miss Mary Connor, president of the state organization of Catholic women's clubs. Miss Connor was one of the women who wholly endorsed the Bill of Rights from the beginning, and who never wavered in her support of it.

We also wrote and telegraphed to women out in the state asking them to write in to their assemblymen who had voted against the measure on Friday, and urging them to support the bill when it came up the following week; and also to urge their senators to support the measure when it came back to the Senate.

In Milwaukee we talked with Mr. George P. West, chairman of the Republican State Committee, and asked him to urge the Republican assemblymen, who had voted against the bill, to vote for it the following week. He was leaving town that afternoon, but promised to write them that morning.

We learned from Mr. Daniel W. Hoan, Mayor of Milwaukee, what person or persons had most influence with the assemblymen and the senators whom we thought indifferent or unfriendly to us. Mr. Hoan is a Socialist and was very friendly to us. We saw as many of these "powers behind the throne" as our limited time permitted.

During the previous week, when we thought we were going to be short one Socialist vote in the Assembly, I sent a special delivery letter from Madison one night to reach Miss Mabel Search, one of the editors of The Milwaukee Leader, the Socialist paper, the following morning. Miss Search was a member of the Woman's Party. Within two hours after the receipt