Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-25
"LEAVES OF GRASS"
The Very Naughty work of the Ven.
cradle Poet Walt Whitman, Con.
demned in Massachusetts,
OsgOOd d Co., the WeII-RnOWn Pub
fishers, Compelled TO Throw Up
Their Contract with Him.

PHILADELPHIA, May 23.-Walt Whitman's
Leducs Of Grass seems to have been born under
an unlucky planet. Attorney General Mars
ton of Massachusetts, has set his seal of con-
demnation upon the work, and Ossood & Co.,
the Boston publishers, have thrown up the
contract in obedience TO the official command
of the attorney general. The history of the
book or poet would fill volume-how both
attracted widespread public attention in 1860.
Whitman's varied and interesting career dur
ing the war, his life in Washington, his dis
charge from a clerkship in the interior de-
partment by the Hon. james Harlan for
being the author of the condemned volume,
his subsequent trials and triumphs, and the
thousands of cruel criticisms and fulsome
eulogies that have followed him ever since.
Whitman's peremptory refusal to expurgate
certain lines alleged to be obscene is the
cause of the action on the part of the attor-
ney-general and the consequent abandon
ment of publication by Osgood & Co.
1t was ia May, 1881, that the idea of
bringing out new and complete edition of
Leaves of Grass was preached, the poet re-
oeivIng an inquiry to that effect from the Bos-
ton publishers. He answered that he had
contemplated such step, but before entering
into any negotiation he wanted it distinctly
understood that not line, word or syllable
of the old text was to be left out in case he
concluded to publish, and he made this con-
good & Co. wrote back asking for the manu-
script and it was forwarded. This was fol-
LEVIED by an offer, and after little haggling
it was agreed that the author should receive
a royalty of twenty cents on every 81 book
sold. In September Mr.. Whitman went to
Boston and personally superintended the
production of his work, which appeared in
November. The sale of Leaves of Grass was
fair, the authors royalty during the winter
and spring amounting 10 more than 800.
Several hundred copies went to London, and
the work was varieusly comment
ed upon in almost every coun-
try in the world. On the LIST of
March of the present year, District-Attorney
Stevens of Boston, acting under instructions
from Attorney General Marston, notified Os-
good & Co. that he intended to institute
suit against them to compel them to stop
the circulation of Whitman's volume, on the
ground that it came under the head of OBJ
scene literature. A long list of passages and
poems were specified, and the district-attor-
ney intimated that if they were stricken out
the publication might continue. On March
21st Osgood & Co. wrote to the author and
acquainted him with these facts, and asked
if the Objectionable passages could be left
out. The poets reply was immediate and
characteristic. He wrote: "The list, whole
and several, is rejected by me, and will not
be thought of under any circumstances"
Publication was then suspended. A week
afterward the publishers wrote again, stating
that if the author would only consent to cut
out the poems entitled "To Common Pros
titute" and "a Woman Waits for Me" the
official mind would be satisfied and the book
could go on; but the author, feeling that
he could not remove part of the struc-
ture without endangering the whole, most
emphstically declined TO even consider
the proposition. In consequence, the Bes-
ton firm, who were averse to being drawn
into any lawsuit, replied that they must give
up publishing the book and were ready to
turn over the plates to the author. This
was done, Messrs. Osgood & Co. taking occa-
sion to say: eve feel it right to cay that it
is not we who have fixed iDfexible condi-
tons under which this matter could be de-
cided; those conditions have been fixed by
yourself" The best of feeling existed
throughout between author and publisher, as
the entire action came from Mr.. Marston.
The "Good Gray Poet" was seen to-day at
his home in Camden, and confirmed the re-
por! that Osgood & Co. had absolutely given
up the book, and that his final settlement
with them had been perfectly satisfactory.
Further than that he, however, declined to
say, except that the attorney generals action
was only another buffet, but not more serious
than any previous obstacles.