During the next session when every effort was being made to produce a vote on the bill from the two full Judiciary Committees, the advocates of the bill were offered _still further hearings_. This offer was made by the Chairman of the House Sub-Committee and also by a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both of whom gave as excuse for not coming to a conclusion on the bill after five years of consideration, that they were so “terribly busy”; the calendar in this short session was so “jammed with important legislation”; there was so much “stuff” to read about endless bills,—“I sent my secretary for the data on one the other day, and would you believe it, Mrs. Dennett, there were seven volumes,” implying that he had not had time to read the report of the hearings on this bill. Yet they offered more hearings, by way of still further congesting their own calendar. No one can deny the existence of a legislative jam in every session of Congress, or that business piles up appallingly in every short session. Three weeks from the end of the last session of the sixty-eighth Congress, Senator Stanley said on the floor of the Senate, “Congress has before it in the present session 17,946 bills, resolutions and joint resolutions. As in most Congresses, the large majority of these bills relate to private or local matters like individual pensions, buildings bridges, etc., and relatively few deal with public questions or national welfare.” The conduct of members of Congress under these circumstances, and the choices made by the steering committees as to which measures shall be scheduled for attention, and allowed a chance on the floor, and also the number and character of the unscheduled measures which are taken up and passed by unanimous consent, make serious food for thought for citizens with inquiring minds. Near the close of the session, it was obvious that the Cummins-Vaile bill would not be allowed any sort of a chance by the Senate steering committee even if reported out by the full Judiciary Committee in time for a vote on the floor without discussion. In fact the leading member of the steering committee was quite explicit in saying so. It looked as if the report (“without prejudice” as at first suggested by Senator Overman, and “without recommendation” as finally filed by Senator Spencer) had been only a sop to those who had labored for the bill, a safe tribute to their “patience” and “hard work.” However, the proponents of the bill, because of the inescapable conviction that the chief reason for Congressional inaction had been the “general distaste” of members for dealing with it openly, decided upon a plan for possibly getting a favorable vote from the full Judiciary Committee of Senate before adjournment, as a means of helping to break down the inhibitions of the other members of the Senate, and so to pave the way in the next Congress for easier and quicker passage of the bill.