"'Oh! no.' "'Then the polygamist can still come to Congress by a majority of five to one.' Though this was true, he seemed to think it very wrong to disfranchise the men. "How many of the committee reasoned as this one did, we are unable to say, but the majority wished to disfranchise the women, as they returned the bill to the House with the obnoxious sections unchanged. The friends of woman, by their honest work, prevented action being taken on the bill, and perhaps saved the country the disgrace of having done such a great wrong, which it could not soon have undone. There was something more vital to the well-being of the nation in this, than some of our legislators were willing to admit. Had they passed this act they would probably have laid the foundation for the ruin of the nation. If Congress has the power to disfranchise one class, it undoubtedly has the power to disfranchise another, and what freeman in such a case is secure in his rights? "Similar bills were before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. "The question came: Where shall we look for help among those in power? To the true, the trusted and the tried. To those of the grandest intellect and the purest heart. To the friends of the weak and the oppressed. Our appeal shall be made to the highest, to the honorable and most honored Charles Sumner. He cordially granted us a hearing. When we stated the object of our visit, he quietly remarked, 'You have come to the wrong person. I have no influence with these men.' "After talking some time on the subject, he said, 'I should hesitate to take this right from any who now possess it. I will go farther; I would be willing to grant it to those who have it not.' He afterwards remarked, 'I shall investigate this matter thoroughly.' "'The bill passed the Senate last year, and many good men voted for it,' we said. "He kindly apologized for their action, in these words: 'They did not fully realize the nature of the bill; they had not examined it carefully.' "'Had it deprived them, or any class of men, of the right to vote, would they have realized what it meant, and voted differently?' we inquired. "'In that case they would doubtless have had sharp eyes to note all its defects,' he answered, with a smile. 'I did not vote on it. I was sick in bed at the time. Have you seen Mr. Frelinghuysen in reference to this?' was the next inquiry. "'We have not. It seems useless. A man who would frame such a bill would not be likely to change it.' "But we followed his advice, saw Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Edmunds and others. Mr. Frelinghuysen declared he would not change his bill however much he might be abused. "Two days after we again met Mr. Sumner and stated the results of our efforts.