In fact not a single adverse answer was received. And of those who replied eight per cent were in favor, eleven asked for more light on the subject, and only three side-stepped the question. Yet that rather encouraging indication did not prevent a repetition of the same incongruous actions when a year later, the National Birth Control League made another effort in Albany. It had to be checked off to educational work, for it did not result even in the introduction of the bill. The Legislators of the majority party, the Republicans, shied off from sponsoring the bill, apparently because, in part at least, it had previously been introduced by a Socialist and because some of the speakers at the Hearing had been “radicals.” This served as a first rate excuse, in the days when any excuse was a good excuse. However, the educational work of that session was worth while both for the Solons and for the proponents of the bill. It was particularly illuminating for the latter, as subsequent events will show. The writer of this book had charge of the work in Albany that year, and a picture of the situation there is given in the following extracts from an article she wrote at the time for “The Birth Control Review” (March, 1919). The Legislators of New York seem to be par excellence the leisure class. They have achieved a six hour week! In these days of battling for forty-eight and forty-four hour weeks, that is something of an achievement. They convene Monday evening, usually with a two-hour session, and on the three succeeding mornings, with sessions from one and one-half hours to ten minutes in length. When out of session some few of them are in committee but the majority are fled—it is hard to know where. For the ordinary citizen with a bill in hand which it is desired to have introduced, such a situation is a problem. The whole session is only ninety days—and with legislative week-ends lasting from Thursday noon till Monday evening, the time available for interviewing members and securing desirable sponsors for the bill is reduced to an appalling minimum. However, like the public, the legislators are surely moving on toward an understanding of what the Birth Control movement really means. Out of the twenty-seven members interviewed in the last few days, only one declared himself positively opposed to the bill, and he decided after ten minutes’ discussion, that he might perhaps be open-minded after all. It seems to take about three-quarters of an hour to answer all the objections the average legislator can think of, and leave him wondering what he can do next to live up to his preconceived notion that he was opposed. More often than not, they end by cordially admitting that they really have no arguments against the bill—merely a vague aversion to the consideration of the subject as a matter of public or legislative responsibility.