These facts became widely known. Many letters of protest from well known citizens were sent to the Attorney General and President Coolidge, with the result that the President commuted the sentence to four months. It is noteworthy that Tresca’s original sentence was the longest of any on record in recent years, perhaps in any years, for this sort of offense. The maximum of five years in jail and $5000 fine seems never to have been imposed since the law was enacted. In the 23 cases listed in Appendix No. 4, the imprisonment terms were as follows: one for a year and a day, one for six months, two for sixty days, four for thirty days, three for fifteen days, and seven were freed or their cases were dismissed. As to fines,—there was one of $1000, one of $100, three for $25 and one for $10. It is told of a judge in the middle west that he imposed a fine of _one cent_ in a case of this sort; the prisoner was guilty under the law, so the judge did his duty, but he apparently also took occasion to register his opinion of the value of the law. Margaret Sanger, the best known among birth control “criminals,” has served but thirty days in jail, all told, though arrested four times. Her nine indictments under the Federal law in 1914 were dismissed. She was freed after arrest in Portland, Oregon, as was also the case when she was arrested at the Town Hall in 1921 in New York when the police broke up the meeting before any one had spoken at all. The charge in this instance was not giving contraceptive information, but disorderly conduct and resisting the police. The one sentence she served was that imposed for opening her “Brownsville” Clinic for giving contraceptive instruction in New York in 1916. For at least ten years past, the local police, the Post Office authorities and John Sumner, Comstock’s successor, have known that Mrs. Sanger was infringing both Federal and State law on a more or less wholesale scale, but there has been no prosecution. In a lengthy letter which Sumner wrote to all the members of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee on February 18, 1921, and in an almost identical letter which he wrote to Senator Cummins on January 23, 1923, in which he pleaded for the continuance of the present laws without change, he twice mentions the fact that Mrs. Sanger had “published a pamphlet entitled —— which described various methods and articles for the prevention of conception and their methods and use.” Yet he has not had her arraigned, as he would be in loyalty bound to do, if his belief in the present laws were thorough-going, as he assured Senator Cummins it was. In his letter Mr. Sumner gives the title of the pamphlet, which makes him also an offender against the Federal law, Section 211,—which forbids anyone to mail any “written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how or of whom or by what means conception may be prevented.” Mr.