We never fail to impress it on the legislative mind that in the last analysis the present laws are absolutely inconsistent with the principle of freedom to know, to think and to do, on which this country is supposed to be founded and that it is outrageous that the government should attempt to place any barriers between the people and knowledge; that the government may rightly discipline people whose abuse of knowledge infringes upon the rights of others, but there it must stop. It can not curb the freedom of citizens to know all there is to know. And they admit that, too. They are amusing in their demands upon us as to the proper way of winning the change of the laws. Some tell us, “You just show us enough demand for this thing and it will go through. If the people want it, let them speak up.” Others say, “Now, if you would only see that this thing is _quietly_ accomplished, with no noise, no public hullabaloo, no newspaper headlines, no publicity, etc., it would be a simple matter for us to put this bill right through as a matter of obvious public welfare.” At a guess, probably two-thirds of those already interviewed will vote in favor of our bill. In the light of much subsequent experience with the workings of the legislative mind the writer considers that last sentence an innocently rash prediction. It should have said “are in favor of our bill,” rather than “will vote for our bill.” For this has proved to be one of the questions on which belief and voting, also private practice and public statement, can be poles apart. There could perhaps be no more fitting place than here to quote the above mentioned article “Do the People Want It?” Here is a slice of public sentiment out of the middle of New York State. Dr. Hilda Noyes, an expert on eugenics and baby feeding, and incidentally the mother of six splendid intentional children, went to a district in Oneida County, where she did not personally know the people, chose at random two streets at right angles to each other and visited fifty married women in succession. She explained to them just how the New York law reads which prohibits Birth Control information. Most of them did not know that it is a part of the obscenity laws and is entitled “Indecent Articles” or that it is utterly sweeping in its provisions, so that even a mother can not legally inform a daughter on her marriage as to how to have her children come at intelligent intervals. They only knew in general that whatever one knew about this subject must be learned secretly. She told them how it was proposed to change this law, and asked them if they preferred to let the law remain as it is and has been for over forty years, or to change it. Forty-eight out of fifty said “change it.”