If such a thing were possible that the people really wanted, knowingly, the enactment of a “doctors only,” special permit exemption bill, and also knowingly, did not want the enactment of a freedom bill, then they ought to have what they want. Democracy is government by the people. It is not necessarily good government. But at least the people should know what sort of legislation they are choosing when they sign endorsement slips and petitions. Many of these have been circulated in the past, and many are being circulated now. There is a notable difference between the two sorts. Those circulated in behalf of the freedom bill have plainly stated that the bill was to remove the ban from the obscenity laws, so that any one who signed could know that he was expressing his approval of that act. Those which are being circulated on behalf of the special-permit, exemption, “not non-mailable” bill _do not state_ that the subject is being _left_ in the obscenity laws. If the assumption is that the people would approve leaving the subject in the indecency classification in laws, then it would seem to be only fair and square to ask them to say so explicitly. For it is a good deal of an assumption. It needs proof before it can be believed. In justice to themselves also, should not the proponents of the limited legislation state clearly what their proposed law would do and would not do, in order that no one should have opportunity to charge them either with carelessness or with duplicity? CHAPTER III CAN THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT? _Congress will do what the people want if the request is made clearly and forceably enough: Inhibitions are waning: Later generations will not bless birth control workers or Congress if legislation is bungled now: Danger of blundering as Comstock blundered: Those who mean well regarding legislation must do well: Present laws unconstitutional: First class legal opinion deems all “doctors only” laws unconstitutional also: Time to discard governmental distrust of the people._