1919. |
July 24. Began preliminary interviews with Senators and Congressmen with a view to discovering the right sponsor for the bill, and to create a good atmosphere for its introduction. Sept. 24. Asked Senator France of Maryland to introduce it, he being chairman of the Committee on Public Health, a physician and heartily in favor of the bill. He agreed to consider it. Oct. 21. Senator France doubted the wisdom of his being sponsor. He suggested Senator Norris of Nebraska. Oct. 22. Senator Norris was wholly favorable to the measure, but said the prejudice of the Judiciary Committee against other measures for which he stood would hurt his sponsorship and he hadn’t the advantage of being a physician. Oct. 23. As Senator France was most desirable, the sponsorship was again put up to him and he said he would again consider it. |
1920. |
Jan. 19. After nearly three months of prodding by letters and interviews, Senator France wrote that he did not feel ready to shoulder our bill ahead of others to which he was already committed. He did not decline, but thought it unfair to keep us waiting further. Jan. 21. Took it back to Senator Norris, who agonized over it conscientiously, but decided he had better not. He had sounded Senator Ball, the only other physician in the Senate beside France. Found him rather skeptical. He then suggested asking Senator Nelson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee to do it as proof of his repentance for having been an abusive opponent (one of the very few we have met).
Jan. 22. Senator Nelson’s repentance went to the extent of recommending that the bill be referred first to the Committee on Public Health and implied that the Judiciary Committee would concur if the report should be favorable. During the next few weeks, besides hunting for a sponsor we interviewed the Health Committee. Seven out of eleven were wholly in favor or inclined favorably toward the bill. Senator Ball was seen several times, in the hope that he would prove to be the right sort for a sponsor. He was slow in coming to a conclusion as to the merits of the bill. Meanwhile two other Senators were asked. Jan. 29. Senator Sterling of South Dakota, first. The discussion convinced him as to the merits of the bill, and he finally agreed to consider sponsoring it. Feb. 18. Urged his decision. He did not refuse, but said he would be relieved to be released from consideration. Promised to work for the measure in Committee and on the floor. Mar. 5. After conferring with Senators France and Norris, whose advice has always been helpful, took the bill to Senator Dillingham of Vermont. He is wholly in favor but considered himself unsuitable sponsor. He is the only Senator who has not kept us waiting for his decision. He urged Ball as best sponsor. Mar. 6. As Senator Ball had announced on February 20th, that he was convinced by our data—on the advice of Dillingham, France and Norris, he was asked by letter to introduce the bill. Mar. 11. Went to Washington for his decision. Found him; he had not even read the letter carefully enough to realize he was being asked. Said “No.” Then reconsidered and agreed to talk it over with France. Mar. 19. He promised to sponsor the bill. He asked for “a few days of grace” before introducing it, to recover from influenza and attend to the suffrage crisis in Delaware. Apr. 21. Introduction still hanging. Said he “hadn’t had time.” Meanwhile the comment of the other Senators had begun to disconcert him. He turned us over to Major Parkinson of the bill drafting service to discuss phraseology and work out an opposition-proof bill. Everything was settled to our satisfaction. It was the Senator’s next move.
Apr. 24. He “hadn’t had time to see Parkinson,” and asked for a few days more of patience. We reminded him that we had waited over a month. He said he would surely do it during this session. We insisted on something definite. He finally promised “some day next week” and that he would wire us what day. May 25. No word, despite letters from our office and many from the supporters of the League. Letters, telegrams, personal interviews with Senator Ball in Washington were all unavailing. He did nothing but reiterate promises. June 5. The Senate adjourned and the bill was not introduced. Dec. 6. With the opening of the last session of Congress, we began the sponsor hunt again. Nine Senators in succession have been asked to sponsor the bill, as follows: Sen. Capper of Kansas. For the bill, but too submerged in his agricultural relief bills to take ours on. Sen. Townsend of Mich. (Member of Health Com.) Favors the bill, but declined on grounds that he was too ignorant on the data to face debate, and too busy to get primed. Sen. Kenyon of Iowa. (Had reputation of being chief welfare advocate of Senate.) Too busy with his “packer” bill. Might consider it at next session. Sen. McCumber of S. D. Admitted merit of bill, but thought he better not imperil his re-election (in 1923) by sponsoring it. Suggested that it be introduced by Health Com. as a whole, without individual sponsorship, so no one would “be the goat.” Sen. Sheppard of Texas. (Sponsor of Sheppard-Towner Maternity Bill.) Recognized necessity of our bill to complete the service provided by his bill, but could not consider sponsoring ours till next session anyway, and probably not then, as he thinks it should come from a Republican. Sen. Fletcher of Fla. (Member of Health Com.) Heartily approves bill, but considers himself unsuitable sponsor because he is a Democrat. Sen. Frelinghuysen of N. J. (Member of Health Com.) Frankly said he would be “afraid” to do it, but he feels favorably toward the bill.
Sen. Owen of Okla. (Member of Health Com.) Like Senator France, author of bill for Federal Health Dept.—unqualifiedly in favor, but sure bill should not be sponsored from Democratic side. Dec. 31. Proposed to Senator France that the bill be introduced by the Health Committee without individual sponsorship. |
1921. |
Jan. 5. Senator France declined the proposition on the ground that the burden of the bill would fall on him just the same. Jan. 13. After thorough consultation with Senator France, took bill back to Senator Sterling. Jan. 27. Senator Sterling answered that he was “too busy to do it at this session.” Feb. 11. Senator Kenyon was asked to reconsider. He replied, “I’m mighty sorry, but I am just loaded down with bills that are taking every minute of my time, and I must ask you to secure some other Senator to take care of this legislation for you.” Mar. 1. Senator Borah was asked to sponsor the bill. He did not see his way to doing it. Aug. 19. Post Master General Hays had put himself on record as not believing in the maintenance of Post Office censorship laws. He was accordingly asked to consider recommending to Congress the removal of the censorship law regarding birth control knowledge. He was most hospitable to the suggestion—said it was timely, that he was interested and had about come to the conclusion that he ought to ask Congress to revise all the laws bearing on Post Office censorship power. He asked for a compilation of pertinent data, which was promptly provided. He had the matter under consideration till he resigned office the following March. But he made no recommendation to Congress. The sponsor hunt began again. Senator Borah suggested the possibility that he might slip in our bill as an amendment to the bill proposing to extend Post Office censorship to information about race track betting tips, if it was reported out of committee and reached the floor for discussion. The bill was killed in Committee, due in part to Senator Borah’s opposition to it.
|
1922. |
Dec. Sponsors found in both Houses. Senator Cummins in the Senate, and Congressman John Kissel of New York in the House. The latter responded to a circular letter asking for a volunteer statesman for the task. |
1923. |
Jan. 10. Bill introduced in both Houses. Jan. 22. Sen. Nelson, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee appointed Sub-Committee of three to consider the bill—Senators Cummins, Colt and Ashurst. Senator Cummins was ill and went to Florida. Committee action was stalled. Strenuous effort was made to get substitute Chairman so action could proceed. Norris was added to Committee but not as Chairman. Feb. 6. Sen. Colt declined to act as Chairman. Feb. 8. Sen. Colt asked to be excused from the Committee. Feb. 13. Sen. Cummins returned. Feb. 19. Sen. Cummins tried to get vote of full Judiciary, as conditions had not permitted a Hearing and report from the Sub-Committee. Meeting adjourned without action. They “did not get to the bill.” Feb. 26. Sen. Cummins tried again to get a vote. Announced that he would call for it before adjournment, again. The members slipped out one by one, so no quorum was present. The Senator said, “They just faded away.” |
1924. |
Jan. 30. Bill reintroduced by Senator Cummins. Feb. 1. Bill introduced in House by Congressman William N. Vaile of Colorado. Mar. 7. Bill referred to Senate Sub-Committee, consisting of Senators Spencer, Norris and Overman. Mar. 22. Bill referred to House Sub-Committee of seven, Congressmen Yates, Hersey, Perlman, Larson, Thomas, Major and O’Sullivan. Apr. 8. Joint Hearing held before both Sub-Committees. Ten spoke for the bill, and five against. May 9. Hearing reopened at request of the Catholics. June 7. Congress adjourned. Neither Committee reported the bill. |
1925. |
Dec. Senator Cummins made Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Jan. 20. Senate Sub-Committee unanimously reported Cummins-Vaile Bill “without recommendation.” House Sub-Committee evaded making a report. Mar. 4. Congress adjourned. |