Sumner in his letter told the Senator “of whom,” and he did so “directly.” He knew he did not risk arrest for doing it even though his act was a “crime.” In all probability neither should we, if we were to print the title of the pamphlet; but as both the author and the publisher of this book are interested in the discussion of sound legislation on this subject rather than in possibly precipitating one more indictment under this good-for-naught law, we discreetly leave the title blank. The conclusion seems quite obvious, judging by the light penalties, the few prosecutions, and the blinking at infringements, that the government, like most citizens, takes this law very lightly and has no idea of living up to its obligation to enforce it. There has been one Post Master General however in recent times who has made at least a gesture toward enforcement, and another who made at least a gesture toward a common-sense revision of the laws. The latter was Post Master General Hays, and had he not resigned his position to go into the moving picture business, perhaps the United States laws on this subject would now be renovated so as to be more a reflection of the people’s beliefs and more true to American ideals. The circumstances in the summer of 1921 were most propitious. Mr. Hays had made several public statements that he was convinced that the Post Office should not operate a censorship system. He had put himself on record in unmistakable terms, and his words had been widely published by the newspapers. So in August of that year, an interview with Mr. Hays was secured by the Director of the Voluntary Parenthood League, and the question laid before him as to whether the time was not more than ripe to remove this particular censorship from the laws which govern the Post Office. He received the suggestion with marked cordiality, saying that it was very timely, for he had about reached the conclusion that it was his duty to submit to Congress a recommendation for the revision of all the Post Office laws which had any bearing on censorship. He asked for a résumé of all pertinent data on the laws affecting birth control knowledge, and he also asked for specimens of good books and other publications on the subject such as are used abroad. On being told that it would break the law (Section 211) to mail such publications to him, he said, “Oh no, I wouldn’t want that done, send them by express.” “Can’t be done,” was the answer, “because Section 245 forbids that also.” “Well then,” said the Post Master General, with an appreciative smile, “by messenger.” The parcel was forthwith delivered to him by that method. But even that was unlawful, for according to Section 312, it is a crime in the District of Columbia to “lend or give away,” or to have in one’s “possession for any such purpose, any book, pamphlet,” etc. Mr. Hay’s plan to submit a revision to Congress was never carried out, perhaps because his retirement from office followed too shortly after to make