Lawyers Splash Cold Water On Crimson's Bathtub Plan

CRIMSON "share-the-shower" plans went down the drain last night when editors learned that their campaign to bring bathless New York college girls to Harvard tubs might be considered a violation of the Mann Act.

The paper's legal advisers prepared a brief after ominous silence from the Justice Department left the issue unclear. CRIMSON Editors had wired Attorney General J. Howard McGrath on the legality of the anti-drought program, and still had no reply by press-time.

White Slavery

The lawyers pointed to decisions on the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (the Mann Act), which says, "Any person who shall knowingly . . . cause to be transported . . . in interstate commerce . . . any woman or girl for . . . any immoral purpose . . . shall be deemed guilty of a folony."

They cited the case of Van Pelt v. US (Virginia, 1917) which said, "The Statute is violated, if the intent is to expose the woman to such influences as will naturally and inevitably so corrupt her mind and character as to lead to acts of sexual immorality."

According to the brief, sharing showers with Harvard men could be argued to be "such influences."

The lawyers also referred to Athanasaw v. US (Florida, 1913): "Procuring or aiding the interstate transportation of a girl for the purposes of employing her under such surroundings as tend to induce her to give herself up to a condition of debauchery . . . constitutes the offence denounced by the act."

As to the CRIMSON's complicity in such after-efforts, the brief cited Montgomery v. US (Wyoming, 1915): "In a prosecution for transporting women in interstate commerce for immoral purposes, a copy of a telegram sent by the accused and found in the files of the receiving office was held permissible" as evidence.

The CRIMSON had sent telegrams to nine women's colleges asking them to cross state boarders, the lawyers pointed out, and publicly admitted doing so in its news columns.

Editors at first planned to go ahead with their tub-sharing and fight the case to the highest tribunal if an injunction was served.

But they gave up when the lawyers pointed out that the Justice Department could issue an injunction restraining them, and nothing could be done about it until the Supreme Court convened again next year. By then the emergency in New York would probably have passed