New-York tribune., 1920-07-10
: Madeleine Not
Indecent, Says
Appeals Court
Decision of Special Sessions
Against Harper & Bros.
Reversed by Appellate
Division of the Court
Brainard Is Exonerated
Had Nothing to Do With
Publication; Complaint
Thrown Out by Judges

Ahe CONVICTION OF Clinton T. Brain
ard and of Harper & Bros, the pub
llshlng firm of which he is president,
OF unlawful possession of an indecent
Dook was reversed yesterday by the
Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court. The Appellate Court not only
reversed the conviction, which was OBJ
tanned in Special Sessions, but also
dismissed the complaint, which was
brought by the Society for the Sup
preston of Vice.
1t also gave a clean bill of health, so
far as decency was concerned. to
Madeleine" the book whose publica-
tion offended the society and it's presi-
dent, John S. Sumner.
THE decision of the court is. of
course, gratifying" said Mr.. Brainard,
VINO IS secretary Of the extraordinary
grand jury, but it is what we had ex-
pected. AS for MIR. Sumner, he acted
within the limits Of his own intelli-
gence. The other phase of this Incl
dert, having to do with my service on
the grand jury which Investigated the
city administration, is too we'll known
to need comment.
Newspapers Pushed Case
"A certain group of newspapers was
interested in having this case pushed
to the limit for reasons of it's own. a
fact that was recognized by the
Authors League. 1 am glad that the
house OF Harper, with its honorable
record of 103 years in American let
ters, has not been made to suffer for
this circumstance"
poration was dismissed as we'll as that
against Mr.. Brainard, Justice Smith
gave it as his opinion that Mr.. Brain
ard would not have been liable in any
event for an offense of the corpora
ton committed without his knowledge.
Justice Clarke, who presided, and JUS
tice Page concurred in this opinion.
:! venture that no one can read this
book" said Justice Smith, "and truth
fully say that it contains single word
or picture which tends to excite lustful
or lecherous desire. Upon the exam
nation of this book am satisfied that
neither defendant has been guilty of
the .offense charged in the informa-
tion."
Obscenity Against Evidence
Justice Clarke declared that "the
finding of obscenity is against the evil
dence." Justices Page and Greenbaum
concurred in this opinion, Justice Dow
ling dissenting. John Larkin, attorney
tor Harper & Bros, said in the brief
he submitted:
The book is not fiction but true
autoolography Of young woman of
good family, refined instincts, gentle
breeding and raising who, through the
drunkenness of her father and conse-
quent poverty of her mother and
brothers and sisters, was brought from
good to bad neighbors until finally she
ended in the neighborhqod of prosti-
tutes and, in order to ameliofate the
condition of her mother and family,
voluntarily went into prostitution
The book, in short, is his
tory of woman's life for ten or fifteen
years of continuing the progressive
horror, ending with her miraculous re-
genera tion."
Mr.. Brainard and Harper & Bros.
Justices Voorhees,, McInerney and
Herman and fined $1,000 each. The
fines were paid under protest. In the
course of the trial it developed that
Mr.. Brainard was in Europe when the
decision to publish the book was
reached and had less to do with it's
publication than other executives Of
the firm.
Justice McInerney accordingly asked
Assistant District Attorney Thomas A.
McGrath how it was that Mr. Brainard
had been brought into the case The
prosecutor replied that his office had
by the Society for the Suppression of
Vice