Ed Swift's logic about the process followed by the County Commission during the working waterfront vote seems to be this: Everybody has been reading about this issue in the paper, the change only involved 686 words, so it was fine for the commissioners to vote after the advocate of the change read the amendment aloud at the end of the meeting without submitting written copies in advance.

Therefore, applying this logic, let's see — everybody has been talking about the rights of the accused, if we alter the wording in the entire U.S. Code from "habeas corpus" to "non habeas corpus" we will only be altering one word, and we can submit the proposed change to the Senate and the House five minutes before midnight, with no advance documentation, and then call for an immediate vote. So what's the problem?

*Bill Averyt, *Key West