The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-24

many hook. which have been success yrI ;n other countries and which pos | sess genuine literary merit cannot be nroduced here on account of their fail- l ure to satisfy this requirement..
 "While books may be brought out | occasionally concerning which there Is | . difference of opinion. no American
 a,h,ishtng house of any standing will issue a book that could be regarded hv the majority of the people as im- moraI. As an example of this, one of | tbo largest and best publishing firms | of New York a few years ago sup | pressed a book by clever and intelli- gent young author after 1t had actual | ly been put in type and thousands or | dollars had been spent in printing | A big edition. They did it because 1t
 was pointed out to them that one chapter in the book had a significance | which had been overlooked by their editors in passing upon it. It wasn't | an immoral book, aside from this one l chapter and the publishers might have been excused if they had tried to sell enough copies to get back the money they had invested. but they preferred to stand the money loss rather than to put out under their imprint any thing that might be regarded as lower ing the standards of their business or that might possibly harm readers of
 uniformed minds.
 Anyway a censorship doesn't pre- vent the issuance of bad books. It
 only adds to the burdens of publish
 CTS. puts a damper on the production
 of real literature and substitutes the judgment of one man for that of the public asa whole. The entire theory on which our government is founded is that that is a dangerous thing to do."
 Personally I don't believe in liter ary policemen" said David Graham Phillips, one of the popular novelists who has been attacked for his frank
 manner in showing up some of the skeletons of American family life. be cause I don't subscribe to the theory that the way to cure a disease is to hide 1t. These good people who want 10 protect the American people against themselves would defeat their own ends
 if they succeeded in doing what they want to. It is not the province Of the
 novelist as see it to say whether the
 facts of life are good or bad, but sim ply to portray facts as faithfully as he can The hot-house theory of lie
 never has worked and never will. have no patience with these shuddering women and feminine males who would I close our eyes to all unpleasant sights. Their theory. logically expressed. Is
  its existence. The truth Is that if
 there is anything wrong in our social organization the way to remedy 1t Is to sweep away the accumulated rub bish and expose it to the light of day. There is another side to this ques-
 tion also How are we to know that
 the judgment of this offical keeper of the public conscience we are asked to set up would be infallible? His opinions as to morality and immorali-
 ty might be all wrong. This appeals
 to me because of an incident that my publishers related to me. There is
 certain bookselling concern in one of
 tho large cities which refused to handle recent book "oId Wives for New" >Ause the proprietors didn't approve , shy attitude on divorce. I'll cheerfully
 give them my receipts from the book
 down to date if they will tell me what Is my attitude on divorce because l
 haven't any, or if I have I don't know
 myself what it is. But this same high ly particular establishment recently
 made an extensive display of a book
 which in my opinion had no claim whatever to attention accept in its
 highly colored appeal to sensual in-
 stincts Now there Is a serious diff ference of Judgment-serious to me as writer of novels at least. and possibly serious also to the bookseller. I may
 be entirely wrong in my opinion, but then again he may be wrong, or both of us may be. I prefer to leave the decision of such questions to the great body of right thinking and risht-acting men and women who constitute the American reading public"
 The most effective censorship" said Clyde Fitch. the playwright, who like MT. Phillips, has been one of the ob- jects of recent attack. 'is the censor ship of the public. It is certainly ef- fective and we are bound to admit that in the majority of cases it is right. In The Woman in, the Case I was criti- cised for representing a wife as as- sociating with dissolute woman and pretending to be one herself in order to save her husbands life, but I defy any person of matured Judgment to say that he came away from that play without feeling of respect and ad- miration for the woman who risked her reputation for the sake of her hus- band. Public morals are simply re- flected on the stage and both are im- proving all the time"
 One practical difficulty in the way of those who advocate a censorship is in determining what Is to bar a book or play. On this point those who pro pose the official regulation of novels ana dramas are not agreed among themselves while outsiders who have discussed the subject are even more widely at sea.
 For instance. Bishop Doane disap- proves Mir Phillips latest novel be- cause fit takes ground against a po- sition I have always maintained name- ly that re-marriages after divorce ought never to be allowed by the church nor by the State, except for the one cause. unfalthfulness"
 On the other hand. MT. Phillips re- torts that the churchmen who preach that divorce Is worse than adultery, or at least that the former cannot be forgiven while the latter may be, do more injury to public morals than the novelist possibly can and that if we are to have a censor he should prevent the circuatioln of such teachings. The head of one woman's organization be- lieves that all novels that present di- vorce in a favorable light should be suppressed, while another woman's club leader believes that women need to be educated to their right" to di- vorce.
 It is easy to see that the oflcial cen. sor if one is ever appointed. will be in for trouble with the lady novelists and that the berth of base ball umpire will be 8 peaceful one by comparison with his.