from this undertaking because of the amount of work and its costliness. The burden of responsibility rests upon us to prove with such evidence that the worst enemy of the church and the most active enemy of woman suffrage is a mutual foe, the 'organized liquor and vice power.' If in the face of such direct evidence representatives of the church still allow prejudice, ignorance or indifference to woman suffrage to influence them, then they knowingly become the common allies of this power."
Miss Gordon gave instances to show the great change taking place in the attitude of the public toward woman suffrage and said the present difficulty was to utilize the opportunities which presented themselves. She urged more concentrated effort from the national headquarters and a substantial appropriation to enable the chairmen of the standing committees to carry on their work; also that they should be elected instead of appointed and be members of the official board, and she concluded: "It is earnestly recommended that suffragists take steps to politicalize their methods. The primaries, affording in many States an opportunity for women to secure the nominations of favorable candidates; active interest in defeating the election of those opposed to suffrage; the questioning of candidates, etc., are all instances where intelligent interest and activity on the part of suffragists will educate the public far more effectively than debates, lectures and literature—to see that women are determined to take an active part in so-called politics, so intimately associated for weal or woe in their lives."
The reports of the headquarters secretary and national press chairman, Miss Elizabeth J. Hauser (Ohio) were read by Mrs. Upton. The first in speaking of the increased demands on the headquarters began: 'In no previous presidential campaign in the United States were the views of candidates on the enfranchisement of women ever so generally commented on by the press. Perhaps never before did candidates consider the question of sufficient importance to have any opinion upon it. Never before did the newspaper interviewer put to every possible personage—politician or preacher, writer or speaker, inventor or explorer, captain of industry, social worker, actor, prize-fighter, maid, matron, widow—the burning query, 'What about votes for women?'" She told of about 30,000 letters having been
