2. Then, examine these people for venereal disease. Restrain the liberty of all the diseased, both women and men, till they are cured. I am one of those heretics who are not particularly concerned with the exact law covering the matter at the present time in any particular place; it suffices me to know that not everywhere are these two regulations in force; nor does declaring unconstitutional the ordinances dealing with these things bother me. I am tremendously interested in seeing that these ideas get across. When the public has made these two suggestions part of its conviction of the right way of doing things, then we will find the way to formulate workable, constitutional regulations embodying these suggestions. “They” tell us that it is an infringement of the liberty of the individual when the women taken for soliciting or in houses are examined for disease. Most certainly it is. And practically all the other laws on our books curtail the liberty of the individual. But, it is an infringement of the right of the community when men and woman with venereal disease go about freely. The community is interested in its own perpetuation. Therefore, it is interested that the prospective and the actual husband shall be just as clean from disease as the girl. But, “they” say such handling of the situation does not meet the economic objection; these suggestions do not even attempt to provide more cash for the girl. Good, the suggestions do not solve the problem for her; that is just the point. She must solve it for herself. That is the only salvation worth having. Yet, not simply by herself and for herself. She will probably fail, if she attempts it alone. But, joining forces with other girls and working together, success will probably follow and there will probably be a greater amount of cash in the pay-envelope. That is worth most to the individual which is conquered into the person, not received as gift. Putting these suggestions into practice will diminish greatly the number who “have to have it.” It will make sinning less popular. MORGAN T. RILEY. New York. INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION TO THE EDITOR: In your issue of March 22 there is a reference and quotation from the statement of “Principles and Policies that Should Underlie State Legislation for a State System of Vocational Education,” adopted at the December meeting of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education in Philadelphia, that tends to give a wrong impression of the attitude of the society regarding the matter of dual control referred to in Professor Dewey’s very clear and forcible article in the same issue.[4]