of the Council from the
Albany (N. Y.) women remonstrants. These were not all phrased
alike, but each asked the recipient: "What can be done to defeat
the woman suffrage bill? Answer at our expense." At nearly the
same moment, the chief agent of the Saloonkeepers' League, an
association recently organized, as they claimed, "to protect our
interests from unjust legislation," appeared upon the scene. Only
a week remained of the legislative session. Whether this agent of
the Oklahoma saloons came at the invitation of the Albany
remonstrants, or the Albany remonstrants sent their telegrams
offering assistance at the instigation of the Saloonkeepers'
League, or whether their simultaneous appearance was by chance, I
am unable to say. That they appeared together seems significant.
If they work as distinct forces, a study in the vagaries of the
human reason is presented in the motives offered to the public by
these two organizations. The Albany remonstrants would protect
the sweet womanly dignity of Oklahoma women from the debasing
influence of politics. The Saloonkeepers' League would save the
debasing influence of politics from the sweet womanly dignity of
Oklahoma women. So these Albany women, who never fail to inform
the public of their devotion to the church, join hands with the
Oklahoma saloonkeepers, who never fail to declare that the church
is a fanatical obstacle to personal liberty. A queer union it is,
but some day the world will discover the mystery which has
consummated it!

It so happened that in this Legislature there was a member who
for thirty years, in a neighboring State, had been an avowed
friend of suffrage. This was known to all Oklahoma, and even the
enemies expected him to lead our forces in the Council. This man
not only betrayed us, but headed the opposition in a
filibustering effort to keep the bill from coming to a final vote
and succeeded. Now, why did he fail us? Did he renounce the faith
of a lifetime? No. Did the suffragists offend him? No; but even
if they had done so a man of character does not change his views
in a moment for a personal whim. Why, then, this change? Any
member of the Legislature, for or against suffrage, if he would
speak as frankly to others as he did to us, would tell you it was
for money. R