We sympathetically recognize the fact that, under the existing Congressional system, _thorough_ consideration for all bills is a physical impossibility for the individual Congressman, no matter how conscientious he may be; also that group consideration in Committee or by the whole House, is subject to great limitation. For these very reasons we ask that, as practicable procedure, a decision on this bill be arrived at by the above suggested method of informal discussion, with us and with other committee members, one by one, as leisure moments during House sessions permit. Just as we sympathize with you in your impossible legislative obligations, we assume your sympathy with us, a group of representative citizens, who after nearly six years of effort, are rightly asking action from the only body that can give it. So we ask your tolerant and cooperative reception of the memoranda of single points which will be presented to you in sequence during the next ten days. The first one is given herewith, namely, the marked article in the enclosed paper, showing that the main principle involved in the Cummins-Vaile Bill has been previously well argued by two distinguished members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. (The enclosure was a copy of the Birth Control Herald of January 20, giving excerpts from the arguments of Sen. Borah and Sen. Stanley on suppressing information about betting. See Appendix No. 13.) February 7, 1925. _POINT TWO._—Constitutionally guaranteed, old-fashioned American liberty is the issue in the bill. “Birth control” is not. The latter is properly a question for individual decision in private life. The bill simply removes the legal barrier to knowledge as to what birth control may be. In other words, it is a question of freedom of speech and of the press. Members of the Judiciary Committee are credited with judicial minds, and the ability to disassociate relevant from irrelevant argument. Much of the previous discussion, both informally and at the two Hearings, has been irrelevant; i.e., about birth control. The few facts which constitute the relevant arguments, have, so far as I know, never been denied by any member of the Committee. February 9, 1925. _POINT THREE._—No law exists which defines information as to the control of conception as, per se, obscene, indecent or in any way immoral. This information therefore should not be legally classed with penalized obscenity, indecency and immorality. The Cummins-Vaile Bill removes it from this classification. But the bill leaves the five statutes in question, amply empowered to suppress any particular instance of this information, which is given in a way that warrants judicial decision that it is obscene, indecent or of immoral import.