The sun., 1897-02-06
A HIGHLY IMMORAL SHOW.
APPELLkTE COUHT,s DECIsIoN IN
THE "OKkHGE BGOssOMsD CASE.

|
The Juss-ent or the lower Court Ce.-
| nrus-d and Manager De-is Must Pay
His FIue or GO TO Prison - Justice
| Bsrrett on the Moral Points I.voIved.
The Appellate Division Of the Sup. emo Court
| handed down deoision yesterday Affirming
| the judgment OF the Court of Special Sessions
| In the case OF John B. Doris. who was convicted
OF violation OF tho Penal Cole and was sem
fenced to pay $3.50 fine or go to Jail for thirty
days. The ofrense was the production OF tho
pantomime "Oranro Blossoms" at the Gsiety
Theatre on Broadway. Tho police declared
the pantomime scandalous. An opinion by
Justice Barrett, accompr nyinG tie decision.
snvs:
Tho defendant WAS convicted under sec
tion 3s5 OF the Penal Code Of the misdemcanor
OF maintaining q public nuisance. The nuis-
nnce consisted Of the public performance IN =
theatre In this city OF q pantomime called Or
ange Blossoms which. as the informal
charged. offensive to pubic docency. The
pantomime commences with the sconic repre-
sentation OF q bed chamber. to which . bride
and bridegroom resort late upon the night OF
their Wedding day Thoy are accompanied by
the brides parents. After tho clock strikes
IL the parents depart. and tho Young couple
are left alone. The hupsand then falls upon his
knees before his wifc. who raises him up. and
as she complains OF a headache he takes her to
the bed and suvessts that she lie down. She re-
quests him 70 leave the room. He refuses. do
clarinu that they w,re married. She insists,
however, and takes him 10 the door. There
ho puts his hand up to indicate that he will be
bach In hvo minutes. and then he goes out.
The woman then proceeds TO undrcss her
self completely and TO put on her nightgown.
She apparently removes even her slippers.
garters, and stosklnxs. In removing her cloth.
ing sho dexterously limits tho exposure of her
person. When sho is entirely repaired TO retire
sho gets into bed. AT that moment there is .
knock at the door and she says 'Entrez.' Upon
this tho curtain falls. The word 'Entrez' 10
the only word spoken throughout The rest Is
dumb show; IL Is apparent that the all-per-
gestiveness. Take that away and nothing is
ieft. That Is. nothing which would be in the
told would become vapid and meaningless.
What the representation essentially suggests
acter throughout 70 suggest that Is its single
idea and purpose. 1t Is that which it presents
TO the eye tho mind. and imagination.
IT is we'll settled that whatever outrnges
morals in indictable. This general subject WINS
fully discussed In The PEOPLE vs.. Muller and the
test OF crimina. .ity there carefully stated. That
test IL whether the picture prescribed to tho
eye IL naturally calculated 10 excite IL srecta.
tor Impure Imagination aud whether other incl
dents and qualities. however attractive. were
merely accessory Ia this as the primary or
substantially the same test was applied In
Regina VS.. Hickman. namely, whether the ten
dency or the matter charged Is to deprave or
corrupt those whose minds are nLcn TO such
Immoral Influences and Z" no might.come In con-
tact with IT,
The question In all these cases. said Mr..
Justice Daniels In the Muller case at General
Term, mus: be what Is the impression pro-
.he writing or fiction refer ell to in the indict-
ment. The present case clearly comes with
In the principle thus enunciatcd. II remains
10 consider briefly two positions taken upon he
half OF the defendant The first is thai pub
lie dccencv Vas not offended because the ct.
ress who played the mart Uf the bride exposed
hut l.tte OF her person. Second. that the sug-
gestiyenrss of the exhibition was connected
with laval marriage. and not Illicit relation.
As I" the frst point, we need only say that
the test to which reference has been made en-
braces any picture that tends 10 degr. de and
corrupt the morals OF those whose minds are
open 20 such Influences. aud that in applying
this test regard Is always had to the idea som
veyed. and such a performance as that undor
consideration Is really more dangerous to pub
llc morals than any mere vulgar exhibition
OF nudity. The latter may arouse impure
thoughts. but is more apt to excite disgust. |
ima- ination. aud where the suggestion Is Inn |
moral the more that IL left To tho inAe elnation
The more subtle and seductive the influence.
The appellanLs second position is some
vance into even q Rrosser domain than that |
nf suRgestiyeness. According to this Wow no |
public display OF any form expression OF |
marital intimacy could be held to he indecent. |
the proposition Is preposterous. The picture |
II none the less licentious because IL Is painted
upon clean canvas. Tho aim was not TO !
honor. but to degrade, marriage. and the de- |
iendants guilt Ia enhanced. not diminished, |
serve his criminal purpose. Tho judgment |
should be affirmed"