_Mr. Johnson_: It has been stated that this is a distasteful subject. Gentlemen, it seems to me that even if true it is irrelevant. The Judiciary Committee must deal with many things, distasteful. But I do not believe it is true. How can anything which deals so fundamentally with one of the three fundamental things of life be distasteful? That is an utter inconsequential consideration. I wish to call attention to the fact that there is in some States a law that says that a refusal to cohabit for one year is a ground for divorce. A method of control of reproduction, which is sanctioned by a large number of people, that by the “natural” method—that is, abstinence at periods in the monthly cycle—is also prohibited as to dissemination by the mails by this law. _Mr. Hersey_: You are giving us the secret? _Mr. Johnson_: That is one of the methods, and is considered “natural” and hence not opposed by the opponents of this law. _Mr. Hersey_: Known to every woman in the world. _Mr. Johnson_: Yes; and it is very unreliable. _Mr. Hersey_: Is it as reliable as your method? _Mr. Johnson_: No. _Mr. Hersey_: Do you know the method advocated here? _Mr. Johnson_: Yes; there are several methods. _Mr. Hersey_: Better than that one? _Mr. Johnson_: Why, of course. Although Congressman Hersey was the one Committee member at the Hearings who talked at length, his mental processes were by no means representative of the Judiciary Committee as a whole. Most of the others evinced clearer thought and a more wholesome view-point. But many of them were willing enough to let Mr. Hersey “go on.” Some confessed to getting amusement from it, and some were apologetic about his “surprising ways,” but all of them who preferred postponement to acting on the bill derived comfort from knowing that Mr. Hersey’s antagonism would furnish excuse for further “consideration” for quite some time. And it proved to be serviceable in this regard, for at last accounts he was still saying that the bill would never be reported out of Committee if he could help it; and the sixty-eighth Congress adjourned without seeing the bill reported, that is, not by the House Judiciary Committee, though the Senate Sub-Committee did give it a unanimous report “without recommendation.”