Sometimes a mistaken method of preventing vice entails worse evils than the vice it would prevent. The Liberals oppose the methods of these postal laws (the Federal obscenity laws) because they regard them as an example of saving at the spigot and losing at the bung, an instance of expending a dollar to save a dime. The question straightway narrows itself into one issue, viz., that of method. It is agreed on all hands that obscenity should be checked, and if possible eradicated. The only point is _how_. We regard these laws as unconstitutional, useless, unnecessary, impolitic and immoral. They are unconstitutional, because the United States Constitution simply empowers Congress to establish post offices and post roads—no more. How then can these words be construed to authorize our representatives to sit in judgment on the moral quality of the parcels entrusted to the mails? The Post Office as we conceive it is a mechanical not an ethical institution. Judge Story says in his work on the Constitution that Congress can not use this power (viz., to establish post-offices and post-roads) _for any other ulterior purpose_, which means, if it means anything, that while the government may for postal reasons, or for the convenience and necessity of the service, exclude such articles as liquor and dynamite, it can not sit in judgment on the intellectual or moral quality of the communications entrusted to it. It has many times been suggested that the matter of birth control legislation be settled by a test case taken to the supreme court on the ground of unconstitutionality. But in view of the fact that the Supreme Court declined to act on Margaret Sanger’s case when it was appealed from the New York courts, and in view of various other precedents, it has not seemed a promising way to get results, certainly not quick results. It might take several years at best to carry a case through, and in the meantime Congress might be only too glad to utilize the fact that a decision was pending, to postpone its own responsibility to act on the repeal bill on which it has been asked to act for six years past. The obvious fact that the ban on the circulation of knowledge in the Comstock law is contrary to the right of freedom of the press should alone be sufficient reason for its repeal by Congress. And both birth control advocates and Congress should pay attention to the fact that there is first class legal opinion that all the “doctors only” laws, if enacted, would also be unconstitutional.