New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-07-31
The Case Of Madeleine"
1 Readers Defense Of John S
Summers Moral Censorship
the Editor of The Tribune

thing.
In your editorial Of July 10, en-
titled "The Case of Madeleine" and
in that Of July IA, entitled "Mr. Sum
ner's Argument" commenting on a
letter from John S. Sumner, secretary
of the New York Society for the Sup
preston Of Vice, printed in the same
issue, I believe The Tribune is OBJ
viously and inexcusaby unfair.
I have not seen the book "Mad-
eleine" and have no knowledge Of Mr..
Sumner or the society, except what
appears in the press; and I have moth
ing but good will for the publ she rs
of the book.
far in claiming that he, as complain
ing witness against the publishers,
had the encouragement of The Trib-
une,' it appearing that your unfavor-
able review of the book stopped short
Of suggesting that it be suppressed,
yet in view of the history and outcome
Of the prosecution it should be plain,
even to mind unframed in law. that
he did not commit ridiculous error
Of judgment" or even make himself
liable to just criticism, and that The
Tribune's sneers at his mentality"
are quite unwarranted.
In the absence of review by the
Court of Appeals we must accept the
decision of the Appellate Division, by
vote of four to one, that the book
is not within the prohibition Of the
statute. Yet in view Of the fact that
one of the five members, Mr.. Justice
Bowling, agreed with Mr.. Sumner to
say nothing of magistrate and the
three justices of Special Sessions, who
also agreed with him, it is plain that
The character Of the book raised a
close question, ono on which learned
judges disagree, and that the prosecu-
ton was not ridiculous" or IAN out
rage" or in any way improper
Prosecuting officers or complaining
witnesses cannot insure the final CON
vlction Of every person whom they
prosecute. If they were obliged to do
so the criminal code would be of little
use. Many q prosecution has been
entirely proper, although it failed Of
success with court or jury. When a
complainant finds one or moro mem
bcrs OF the eminent Appellate Di-
vision agreeing with him md uphold
ing conviction he may 20 sure that
he was justified in instituting prose-
cution.
Why rail at Mr. Sumner Or his So
ciety as attempting a "ynoral censor
ship when it is plain that no pub
Usher can be punished who does not
offend against the criminal code as in
tcrpreted by the learned appellate
courts! LAWYER.
New York, July 2S, 1920.
THE Tribune is very glad to give
space to this defense of Mr.. Sum
ner dissenting from its editorial and
from the opinions expressed by other
readers. The essential difference
with our correspondent is suggested
by his last paragraph. 1t is small
consolation for a publisher that after
long and expensive litigation a
book can be justified and jail SEN
tence escaped. Literature cannot
flourish in an atmosphere of repres-
sion and censorship. a police court
can give an excellent decision as to
what is clearly and fagrantly in
decent. 1t cannot, il the nature of
things, be certain Of giving an in
telligent opinion upon book like
'Madeleine,' which so sane and ex-
pert an authority as Judge Lindsay
heartily approved. Any attempt to
exert a general moral censorship
upon books not clearly indecent
seems to US certain to result in
gross and absurd injustice. Yet such
censorship Mr.. Sumner has under
taken to enforce. The issue is a
large and important one, as the de-
nunclation of Mr.. Sumner far and
wide shows. New York is the intel
lectual center Of the country. If its
publications are to be terrorized bv
the prosecutions of a man of Mr..
Summers intelligence, the, whole
country suffers. We suggest that our
correspondent investigate the facts
as to the prosecution of Mr.. Brain
ard, of Harper's, for the publica-
ton of Madeleine" his connection
with the Extraordinary Grand Jury
and the fashion in which this prose
cution Of an individual who had
never seen Madeleine" before it was
published and had nothing person.
ally to do with it's publication was
utilized by Mr.. Hearst and his allies.
We gladly acquit Mr.. Sumner of
participating in this effort to dis
credit body of courageous public
servants, but we cannot alter our
opinion of his intellect.-Ed.l