At the time of this Hearing (January, 1922), Senator Stanley was not on the Judiciary Committee but he was so interested in preserving the right of free press from further encroachment that he appeared at the Hearing as an opponent of the bill, and as a pleader for fundamental liberty. At present, however, he is a member of the Judiciary Committee, with the best of opportunities to make his convictions count effectively for the Cummins-Vaile Bill, in which precisely the same principle is at stake, namely, the freedom of the press and the right of the individual to have access to knowledge. The V. P. L. Director was originally indebted to Senator Borah for her copy of the report of this Hearing. He has never faltered in his opposition to the principle of censorship. And Senator Sterling, the Chairman before whom this Hearing was held, was already at that time committed to support of the Cummins-Vaile Bill. He gave his word that he would work for the Bill in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. In the 113 pages of the Report of the two Hearings on the bill to exclude gambling information from the mails, there are many more analogies to the principle involved in the Cummins-Vaile Bill than there is room to recount, so the excerpts below are only samples. At the very start there is similarity of circumstance. At the first Hearing Senator Stanley spoke “especially of the section that was added in the last hour of debate, about which I am advised comparatively few members of Congress knew anything at the time of its passage.” That the House should have inadvertently passed a measure on the strength of its moral sounding aim, but which contained an unwarranted suppression of constitutional rights is exactly what happened in 1873, when the Comstock bill was hastily passed, aimed at obscenity, just as this bill was aimed at gambling, but blundering into suppression not only of crime, but of freedom. _Sen. Stanley_ (speaking on behalf of representatives of the chief metropolitan newspapers): “These great papers wish an opportunity to show that the gambling evil is not best remedied—especially by a government of delegated powers—by an unwarranted restriction of the freedom of the press or the freedom of speech.” (Similarly, the abuse of contraceptive information is not to be remedied by laws forbidding access to that information. Ed.) _Sen. Stanley_ (at the second Hearing): “Despotic governments have always viewed and always will view freedom of speech with apprehension and alarm. When you have placed a censorship or arbitrary inhibition or prohibition upon either the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press, you have not invaded one constitutional right, but have imperilled or desolated them all.” _Sen. Borah_: “Do you attack this as unconstitutional, or simply the policy of it?”