However, it seems doubtful that he was quite so oblivious as to the plain import of the law’s words, as to sincerely think they did not mean what they said. It seems more likely that in planning laws as he did with their sweeping prohibition, he was instinctively acting to provide himself and those who were involved in the enforcement of the laws, with an absolutely unhampered opportunity to decide who among the law-breakers were “reputable” and what was “obscene,” “immoral,” etc., and to pick out whatever offender they chose for prosecution. He knew of course that complete enforcement was utterly impossible, but to be able to make the law effective here and there according to his own will, was a use of power that was very evidently to his liking. Comstock’s moral code on this matter would seem then to boil down to about this, if he had presented it, shorn of all his adjectives and settings: some perverts use contraceptives, therefore the law should not allow any one at all to secure them or know anything about them, and besides, as most of those who are not perverts can’t be really trusted anyhow, hearing about or seeing contraceptives would be pretty sure to make them go to the devil, especially young people, so the complete prohibition is after all the safest; however, if you happen to be decent and you can manage to get a doctor to give you some information, I will not have the doctor prosecuted, that is, provided he is _my idea_ of reputable. The question for present day citizens is as to whether they want to retain laws framed by a man holding such a concept, and which laws accurately reflect that concept, or whether they want to revise the laws to reflect the concepts held by the majority of the fairly normal wholesome-minded people of this country who have long ago proved their belief in the control of conception by practicing it,—that is, as best they can under the handicap of the laws.