On February 14th the bill was recommitted to the Committee on motion of Senator Buckingham of Connecticut who thereafter took charge of the bill on the floor. It came promptly back the next day, amended and approved by the Post Office Committee, but neither the bill nor the amendment was discussed. The writer has personally inquired whether there is an official report on the bill in the files of the Post Office Committee, and was told that there is none. Senator Buckingham asked unanimous consent to take up the bill, saying, “I think there will be no objection to it.” Senator Thurman of Ohio protested that it was too important to vote on without deliberate investigation, and asked that it go over. It did, for two days. On the 20th, by unanimous consent the business of the “morning hour” was extended for ten minutes to permit discussion of the bill. But the discussion was remarkably unilluminating as to the merits of the bill. Senator Buckingham offered an amendment which omitted the clause providing exemption for contraceptive information on prescription of a duly licensed physician, given in good faith. Two Senators asked Senator Buckingham to explain the difference between the amended version and the previous version. He evaded explaining. Senator Hamlin of Maine urged that the measure be accepted as approved by the Committee and “not to tinker with it on the floor.” Senator Conkling of New York insisted that the bill be printed as amended, “in order that we may know something at least of what we are voting upon.” He said, “For one, although I have tried to acquaint myself with it, I have not been able to tell, either from the reading of the apparently illegible manuscript in some cases by the Secretary, or from private information gathered at the moment, and if I were to be questioned now as to what this bill contains, I could not aver anything certain in regard to it. The indignation and disgust that everybody feels in reference to the acts which are here aimed at may possibly lead us to do something which, when we come to see it in print, will not be the thing we would have done if we had understood it and were more deliberate about it.” When Senator Conkling thus cautioned the Senate to be careful in the framing of the Comstock bill, he had what might be called almost feminine intuition. For as history has conclusively proved, the Senate did precisely that thing. It prohibited what it had no intention of prohibiting,—the spread of scientific education of the wise spacing of births in the human family. But the warning was unheeded and there was no further discussion. The next day, February 21st, the bill was called up and passed. The history of the bill in the House is even more brief. On February 22nd a message was received from the Senate that the bill had been passed and the concurrence of the House was requested.