was correct when he claimed that statistical normality and desirability are distinctly different concepts; but now he seems unaware that legality and desirability are distinctly different concepts in a free country. In this respect he is like most citizens of this country and England, who constantly show their failure to realize that, in a free country, legalization does not mean approval. But those who understand the principle of Individual Liberty and believe in it have expressed the idea many times. Alec Craig writes thus: "It is the medieval mind that is responsible for the frequent confusion of permission in law with ethical approval. If we want to apply the words tolerant, liberal, libertyloving to ourselves with any significance at all, we must be willing to allow people to act in ways that we consider wrong and foolish." And Bernard Shaw: "Tolerance and Liberty have no sense or use except as toleration of opinions that are consid ered damnable and liberty to do what seems wrong." This is the same principle which in regard to Freedom of Speech. has been thus expressed by John Stuart Mill: "There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." And by Tustice Scrutton: "You really believe in freedom of speech if you are willing to allow it to men whose opinions seem to you wrong and even dangerous." And by Leon Whipple: "Some day men will realize that it is not a mere phrase-that highest ideal of Liberty-to be willing to die that other men may have the right to teach what you believe to be false and dangerous." And by Theodore Schroeder: "Only tyrants and slaves live where any sane adult can be prevented from receiving even the most odious opinion, about the most obnoxious subject, expressed in the most offensive language, by the most despised persons." And by Charles W. Wood: "I cannot get excited over the suppression of various works of art at the present time. The defense in every case has tried to prove that said works of art were not immoral, as though that were a reason for tolerating them. There is only one way in which we can fight for toleration, and that is to call for the toleration of things which are concededly immoral. In some cases I have been asked to go on the witness stand and state that I found nothing objectionable in some book which the Vice Society was trying to suppress. I have uniformly refused. If I saw nothing objectionable in it, there would be no point in my going on the stand at all. If people cannot toler-

one

ate the objectionable, then they have no tolerance."

As early as 1854, almost a hundred years before the Kinsey Report, John Stuart Mill wrote: "What any person may freely do with respect to sexual relations should be deemed to be an unimportant and private matter, which concerns no one but themselves. If children are the result, then indeed commences a set of important duties towards the children. But to have held any human being responsible to other people and to the world for the fact itself, apart from this consequence, will one day be thought one of the superstitions and barbarisms of the infancy of the human race." Since then, the same principle has been announced again and again. By Havelock Ellis: "It is not until a child is born or conceived that the community has any right to interest itself in the sexual acts of its members. The sexual act is of no more concern to the community than any other private physiological act. It is an impertinence, if not an outrage, to seek to inquire into it." By Bertrand Russell: "I think that all sex relations which do not involve children should be regarded as a purely private affair, and that if a man and a woman choose to live together without having children that should be no one's business but their own." By Alec Craig: "In cases where no children are involved and the parties concerned are in agreement, it is clear that modernism can see no justification for legal or social interference with sexual conduct except for the protection of the immature." By Herbert Shelton: "Where the sex act is voluntarily entered into by the two parties, for the pleasure of the act alone, and they refrain from creating any definite responsibilities in the form of children, or in the spread of venereal disease, this is certainly not the business of Society. It is a purely personal affair between the two people." By Judge Benjamin Lindsey: "Society has no concern with the intimate relations of men and women save so far as the procreation of children and the public health is concerned. The sex relations of an individual should no more be subjected to social regulations than his friendships." By William J. Robinson: "The sexual relationship of two or several sane adult persons is their affair solely and exclusively. The State has a right to interfere only when the union has resulted in children and these children are not properly cared for. With this sole proviso, it is a remnant of savagery and of theocratic domination for the state to attempt to control or to dictate to the peo-

22