Picture him then, as he sees the whole world tending to the ambition to own at least a Ford, introducing a bill a la Comstock, which would make it a crime to circulate any “book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter print or other publication” showing how automobiles may be constructed, or any “article or thing designed, adapted or intended” to aid in such knowledge, or “anything which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it” to the making of automobiles, or “giving information directly or indirectly how, where or of whom or by what means, any of the hereinbefore mentioned matters, articles or things may be obtained,” etc., etc. And while he could he could not help witnessing the daily increase in automobile traffic, and while he might now and then, when unobserved, use a taxi himself when circumstances made it desirable, he certainly would not let that mar his feeling of righteous loyalty to his general conviction that the spread of knowledge as to the making of automobiles ought never to be sanctioned by the laws of our great and glorious nation. “Blithering idiot” would be about as complimentary an epithet as such a Congressman, if he existed, would receive from his fellow members. But because the Comstock law deals with science pertaining to sex instead of science pertaining to motors, some Congressmen do not yet quite recognize the innate stupidity as well as the injustice of any governmental attempt to put a “no admittance” sign over any department of knowledge. As above stated, we have 24 States in which there is a specific prohibition of the circulation of contraceptive information or means. Now what is the situation in the other half of the States? In all but two of them,—North Carolina and New Mexico,—there are obscenity laws modeled very closely upon the Federal laws, but unlike them in that they do not mention by name the subject of contraceptive information or means. But just because the Federal laws and the laws of half the States do name the subject among the penalized obscenities, these 22 other States have the strongest possible legal precedent for prosecuting, _as an obscenity_, if they so desire, the circulation of any sort of contraceptive information whatever, as something which is against public policy. And just because obscenity itself has never been defined in law, but can mean all sorts of things to all manner of officials, judges and juries, there could be nearly as much opportunity to prosecute those who give contraceptive information in the relatively free States as in the States which have specific prohibitions.