Maud Wood Park, Front Door Lobby (Boston: Beacon Press, 1960) Chapter Three: In Marble Halls pp.38-41
...
During January, 1917, our lobby, in addition to members of the Congressional Committee, consisted of twenty-nine women from sixteen different states, who stayed in Washington at their own expense for periods ranging from six days to four weeks. For their use we had our lobby rules drawn up in the following form:
DIRECTIONS FOR LOBBYISTS
I. PREPARATION:
1. Read our records of each member before calling on him. Also read biographical sketch in Congressional Directory. Records must not be taken from the office.
2. Provide yourself with small directory. Your own representative is the best source of supply.
II. INTERVIEWING:
1. If the member appears busy ask whether he would prefer to see you at some other time.
2. Be courteous no matter what provocation you may seem to have to be other-wise.
3. If possible learn the secretary's name and have a little talk with him or her, The secretary, if inclined to be interested, should be invited to headquarters.
4. If the member is known to be in favor show that you realize that fact and ask him for advice and help with the rest of the delegation. This point is very important.
5. Be sure to keep his party constantly in mind while talking with him.
6. Be a good listener. Don't interrupt.
7. Try to avoid prolonged or controversial argument. It is likely to confirm men in their own opinion.
8. Do not stay so long that the member has to give the signal for departure.
9. Take every possible means to prevent a member from committing himself definitely against the Federal Amendment. This is most important.
10. Leave the way open for another interview if you have failed to convince him.
11. If the member is inclined to be favorable invite him and his family to headquarters.
12. Remember to hold each interview confidential. Never quote what one member has said to you to another member. It is not safe to talk of your lobby experiences before outsiders or before servants. We can never know by what route our stories may get back to the member and injure our cause with him. We cannot be too cautious in this matter.
III. REPORTS:
1. Do not make notes in offices or halls.
2. Do find opportunity to make notes on one interview before starting another. If necessary, step into the "Ladies" dressing room to do this.
3. Write full report of your interview on the same day giving
a. Name and State of member.
b. Date and hour of interview.
c. Names of lobbyists and name of person making report.
d. Member's argument in detail, especially with view to follow-up work.
e. Any information you may glean about his family or friends that may be useful to the Washington Committee.
f. Hand-written report to Miss Bain, not later than the day following the interview.
g. Promptness in turning in reports is most important in order that lists and polls may be kept up to date.
When I was sufficiently familiar with the work to have a little sense of humor about it, I condensed those rules into a series of "don'ts":
Don't nag.
Don't boast.
Don't threaten.
Don't lose your temper.
Don't stay too long.
Don't talk about your work where you can be overheard.
Don't give the member interviewed an opportunity to declare himself against the amendment.
Don't do anything to close the door to the next advocate of suffrage.
The last "don't" was the one I dwelt on most in my talks with our workers, partly because it was the most difficult to follow. Knowing that the effect of our work in the case of doubtful members was cumulative, I used to say over and over again, "If we can't do any good, at least we must be sure that we don't do any harm."
Many of our lobby meetings were as entertaining as a good comedy. One of the women had the gift of ironic wit. Another was a capital mimic and gave us side-splitting imitations of some of the men whom she had interviewed. She was wise, too, for she cautioned us never to tell outside that any of our number had ventured to "take off" members of the Congress. I sometimes found it hard to stop my own laughter long enough to give out the next assignments.
Some of the written reports were funny, too. For example, this was turned in by one of our southern lobbyists after she had interviewed a Texas member:
Polite but positive. Against woman suffrage-any phase of it. Declares that men represent women. When I suggested my being a widow and not having representation, he gallantly offered to represent me. The fact of his living in Texas and my residence being in Kentucky did not dismay him at all, but the proposition was most unsatisfactory to me. Against prohibition and against child labor bill. Has not seen any light at all in progressive legislation.
Another southern interview went into our record in these words:
Invited us in-polite manner. Believes that woman dwells apart from man-in her nature. "She is different-Nature made it so-all history, science and biology prove it! Look at the barnyard, the 'cockerel' protects the hen, etc. Woman is meant for the home, the hearth and to be sheltered by man." He acknowledged that there were some women outside the home, but men could protect them. The dirty mire of politics for women could not be thought of. He deplored the lack of woman's trust in men, and did not think women wanted to be called "suffragands" (the correlation of the word "brigand"). He is beyond the pale. We parted in a friendly way.
The shortest and most satisfactory report that I remember was of an interview with Hon. Fiorello La Guardia:
He said, "I'm with you; I'm for it; I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me," all in one breath.
All of us suffered from the hours spent in walking up and down those marble corridors. One lobbyist said that she never wanted to hear again, "I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls." And several declared that the first thing they would work for after women got the vote was to have thick carpets laid on the corridors of the Senate and House Office Buildings.
One evening a woman from one of the western states gave an account of an interview that found an echo in all our hearts, even though I had to point out that her part in the incident was not exactly that of the patient listener, such as we were all expected to be. It seemed that the member to whom she had to talk was grouchy. "I don't see why you women come round here bothering us about that amendment. It hasn't got a chance of passing," he complained. "You're only wasting our time."
"Well," said the interviewer, "if you will just look back to the days when your mother had to take you over her knee, I'm sure you will recall that what she said was, 'Son, it hurts me a great deal worse than it hurts you.' And that's exactly how we women feel when we have to come up here and plead for our rights."
But the marvel was that we met so few cases of actual rudeness. That fact seemed to me highly creditable to the membership as a whole, in view of the numberless unwelcome visitors who have to be received in Congressional offices. On the House side, in particular, where in those years a member had only one room for his office, he was at the mercy of anyone who called, because he could not conceal his presence, as senators, with two rooms, were able to do. Although many House members divided their offices by arranging bookshelves or cabinets crosswise to give an alcove in which they might be screened from the sight of anyone coming through the door, they had no way of getting rid of a visitor who chose to sit down and wait, except by flat refusal to see him or her. And members soon learn that flat refusals are dangerous. I came to feel real sympathy for busy men who had to keep away from their offices in order to work on a report or a speech.