The few instances of hot antagonism became more and more exceptional. Our prize enemy even became friendly enough to suggest easy ways of bringing the measure to vote. But in our first interview he had blurted out remarks such as these, gleaned from our notebook: “You ought to be ashamed, an intelligent American woman like you.” “You ought to stay at home and take care of your children” (shades of the early suffrage days!). He refused to be diverted from personal abuse by statistics from the Children’s Bureau about the high baby death rate where wages are low and families too large. His answer was that statistics lied and he “wouldn’t read ’em.” He scoffed at the idea that children needed a fair chance for education. “This education business is overdone. What children need is work.” He countered all facts and all logic with “I decline to argue.” On being invited to read a booklet giving the main reasons for our measure he replied, “I will not. I don’t need to,” and he wound up with the stentorian advice, “Young woman, you better go home and pray for a clean heart.” But within a day or so he sent the following note: “My dear ——: “... Perhaps I was a little hasty with you when you called this morning. You took me somewhat by surprise. If you should happen over this way again, and could catch me when I am not very busy, I should be glad to talk over matters with you more fully, and get your viewpoint more clearly. “Yours very truly, “——.” And lo! the next time he was gentle and receptive. He chuckled over the query as to whether the farmers in his State sowed wheat as thick as the soil would hold it, and whether they planted potatoes 4 inches apart or over 2 feet apart, and if babies didn’t need space just like crops. He answered, “That’s so, that’s so,” and presently he was advising us to get the Health Committee to commend the bill to the Judiciary Committee, which would undoubtedly act on the advice. Our next most spontaneous and unique antagonist was one of the leading orators of the Senate, who delivered this little speech on the mere sight of our card bearing the name “Voluntary Parenthood League”: “All these leagues and welfare organizations, no matter how fair they look on the outside or how well they speak or write, are all ‘Bolsheviks’ at heart, and what they really want is to overthrow the Government of the United States.” The mild suggestion that it might be rash to generalize brought a smile and the remark, “Why, yes, that’s fair,” and he pocketed the offered literature and promised to “investigate.” Speaking of “Bolshevism,” here is another item from the interview notebook: