Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 6.djvu/310

296 HISTORY OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE tion. The vote in the House was ayes, 69, noes, 161 ; in the Senate, ayes, 6, noes, 31. During all these years a quiet but effective opposition had been working at the State House under the direction of Charles R. Saunders, legislative counsel for the Anti-Suffrage Association. One of the most significant features in the fall of 1911 was the political work of Miss Margaret Foley, as it marked the beginning of a new type of effort. She had made a special trip to England the year before with Miss Florence Luscomb and Miss Alice Carpenter to observe the methods of the English suffragettes, who were then receiving great publicity. After her return she began by attending with other women the political rallies of the various candidates for the State Legislature and at the close of each rally asking the candidate how he stood on the question of Votes for Women. By her knowledge of crowd psychology and gift as a speaker, she was able not only to handle but to win the roughest crowd to the consternation of the candidates. When the candidates for Governor started on their campaign, Miss Foley, with a group of workers, followed the Republican candi- date in a fast automobile, attended all his meetings, spoke to the crowd on suffrage after the Republican speeches were over and questioned the candidates for Governor and other State officers as to their stand on suffrage. This unique and somewhat sensa- tional method was taken up with avidity by the newspapers, which gave it front-page articles with illustrations. Later she turned her attention to the Democratic candidates. This was kept up until election and suffrage facts and arguments were presented to thousands of voters who would never otherwise have heard them. In 1912 the Legislative Committee, Miss Mary Gay, chairman, conducted the hearing on February 26. Afterwards a special letter of thanks was sent to Professor Lewis J. Johnson of Har- vard and the Hon. Joseph Walker for their help at the hearing. The amendment had able support from members and the cam- paign work began to show results. The vote in the House was ayes, 96, noes, 116; in the Senate, ayes, 14, noes, 17. In the autumn the method was introduced which many be- lieved was ultimately responsible for putting the amendment through the Legislature. It was the defeating of individual