_Sen. Stanley_: “The evil of attempting to restrict the freedom of the press in discussing this matter more than counterbalances any possible ultimate good. It is purely problematical whether it would stop any racing or not, or deter it. It is an actual fact that it would be another step in the wrong direction—that is of a pernicious, vexacious, inquisitorial censorship of the press. “It would of course be argued that the boy would not be sent to prison for five years or fined $5000. And why? Because judges have more sense and more humanity and more decency than the Senate, and that they would refrain from doing what they are authorized to do. Now you enact this bill, and how do you know that somewhere, sometime, you are not going to find a Judge that has just as little sense of proportion and propriety and justice as the Senate of the United States? (For instance the Judge who sent Carlo Tresca to jail for a small unwitting infringement of the Comstock act, which government officials as a whole make not the slightest attempt to enforce. Ed.) _Sen. Stanley_, satirically: “Because Congress has gone very near the end of its constitutional tether, it should cut the tether and go the whole length: because it has regulated the freedom of the press in a few respects, it should now proceed to regulate them in all respects.” _Sen. Borah_: “I think, Senator Stanley, that the argument that we will have to rely upon finally is whether we are going any further. There are plenty of precedents for this law on the statute books.... They are bad precedents, but they are there.” _Sen. Stanley_: “Exactly, Senator Borah.” _Sen. Borah_: “I would like to repeal many of them.” _Sen. Stanley_: “I would like to join you in that.... “No man of course is in favor of moral uncleanness.... But that is no reason why the Federal Government should act as a spy and as a supervisor of the private relations between men and women in the several States.... “Race gambling no one doubts is an evil. Of course it is. But intemperance is a bad thing. Therefore the papers must not encourage intemperance by mentioning the concomitants of an alcoholic drink; the other day an officer tried to stop the Cincinnati Inquirer from making reference to a copper can because they said some copper cans were used for distilling! That is a fact. Where are we going to stop?