The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-04-03

paired, 8 sufficient basis for the giving of such advice and eouip- ment was considered by the de- fendantS to exist if a patient had recently given birth to a child. In many cases "multiparity, which means simply that the patient has been pregnant more than once, or spacing" was the only reason indicated on the records as the basis for the giv- ing of contraceptive advice and equipment.
 pr. Goodrich explains "spac- ing" in these words: 'In the first place, a woman who has a child should not become preg- nant for around six months to a year, depending upon the gen. eral condition of her health. In other words, time should be al- lowed for tho return of her or ganS to the normal condition be- fore further pregnancies are un- dertaken. It has been found that Ii women have one pregnancy succeeding another their health is poorer than if they allow an interval of some two to two and a half or three years from the birth of tie child. Purely from health standpoint, a woman who had a child should be entitled to contraceptive advice"
 The contraceptive equipment with which the clinic began op- eration was donated by the Clin- ical Research Bureau, so-called, of New York city. Patients were charged il accordance with their estimated ability to pay - the largest charge being $50 and the smallest ten cents. In many instances the patients were un- able to pay anything and in no instance did a patient pay a sum equal to the cost of the equipment with which she was supplied.
 Case History Since Arrest
 On June g, 1889 the defend- ants were arrested on bench warrants issued by this court. Thereafter the informations were amended in order to furnish the necessary hasis for a test of the claims made by the defendants with reference to the unconstitu- tionality fo the statutes under which they are informed against. On Nov. 3, 1889 this court, Judge Wynne presiding sustained the defendants demurrers to the amended informations and de- clared the statutes unconstitution- al insofar as they apply to these defendants. The state appealed to the supreme court of errors, which reversed the judgment of the superior court, and it re- manded the cases with direction to overrule the demurrers. The state has filed, accordingly, a motion in each case requesting the court to order the demurrer in each ease to the amended information overruled in accord ance with the opinion of the su- preme court of errors and the state now presses these motions.
 The investigation by the states attorneys office of the activities of these defendants began on June 12, 1889. In the course of the investigation a large num- Der of patients who had been treated at the clinic, and all of the defendants, testified volun- tarily and at length as to what had been done at the clinic. The records of the clinic were made available to our office and the defendants cooperated fully in establishing all of the material facts in relation to the operation O. the clinic, the supplying of contraceptive advice and equip ment to the various patients by the defendants and the exact participation of each defendant. The state, consequently. is in possession of sufficient evidence to establish the violation by these defendants of the statutes under which they are informed against.
 Believed They Had Right
 However, I am satisfied that these defendants believed that they had right to do the acts referred to in the informations in these cases. They donated their time and services to what they regarded as a charitable work. I do not believe that they intended to violate he criminal laws of this state. When this Wa terbury clinic was opened there were in open operation elsewhere in the state at least eight other contraceptive clinics which had been i Il existence for long De- riod of time and no question as to their right to operate had been raised in any court. These facts were known to and relied upon by these defendants.
 The primary purpose of the institution of these prosecutions has been accomplished, namely the establishment of he consti- tutional validity and efficacy of the statutes under which these accused are informed against. Henceforth any person, whether a physician or layman, who vio- lates the provisions of these stat utes, must expect to be prose- cuted and punished in accord ance with the literal provisions of the law.
 In view of the absence of any actual criminal intent on the part of these defendants it seems to me unjust to destroy the pro- fessional careers of these physi- clans by a conviction and I be- lieve that nolle should enter in each of these cases and, with the permission of the court, I do nnW enter cl1ch A rnnlla in oo nh nnro