The New York herald., 1922-01-15

ner's introduction to the metropolitan public
came with the suppression of "Jurgen.'
During the course of the controversy Mr.
Sumner made few friends and a few en-
emies Chiefly, however, he gave to the
name of James Branch Cabell a certain aura
|, of mystery that had its value commercially
We'll" said Mr. Sumner. when we stepped
into his office holding a copy of Prof
Showerman's article. whats this?"
Mr.. Sumner is not close follower of the
Yale ReuieD, but he knew its general repu-
tation well enough to realize that we did not
propose to invoke the ire of the society over
a clipping from it's pages. He was quite
ready to collaborate in devising a line of
decency, if not to corroborate Prof. Shower
mans ready made plans. He confessed that
the vice society was more concerned with
the law on the statute books than with the
laws of taste or deeency.
"Wea are a law enforcing organization" :"
he said. I'VE neither make the laws nor
interpret them. We merely see that they
are not violated The distribution of OBJ
scene or indecent literature is forbidden by
the law. We make it our business to see
that violations are followed by prosecutions.
Indecent Defined by Courts
As Word of Common Meaning
"The courts have declared that indecent
is word of common meaning. They have
refused to permit expert testimony on
further definitions. Prosecutions are based
on previous court decisions. The ruling
opinion comes from the case of the People
vs. Muller in 1880, where it was set down
that anything which suggested lewd and
lascivious thoughts to persons who were
open to suggestion a violation of the
law"
AS the New York law now reads, it pre-
scribes that anything must be lewd, las
civious obscene, indecent. filthy and dis
gusting before ii can be suppressed. The
words filthy and disgusting were added
at later date than the original law, in
tending, according to the head of the vice
society, to convey different meaning. But
as the courts have interpreted it, to be-
come eligible for suppression a book must
qualify by having all of the six determining
adjectives applicable to It,
This ruling, apparently has disconnected
the censor on various occasions. Just when
II has been proved to the satisfaction of
Magistrate that book is lewd lasciyious
obscene and indecent along comes the fatal
adjective filthy" and the case is thrown
out of court. To the court and the Jury
is left the delicate matter of deciding
whether certain material can be indecent
without being disgusting.
AHC NOWt uoeS ulSlluSulSn on lne matter
OF intent" said Mr.. Sumner. Take a book
OF 900 pages with only two or three indecent
passages fitted into the text and apparently
necessary and the book passes. Another
book may have an indecent idea running all
through, with paddings to conceal the orig
inal intent. 1t is often difficult to decide
definitely the apparent intent of a book or
picture. 1t is up to the court to Judge
"A work of art, perhaps a nude. displayed
in an art gallery or in a museum is quite all
right. But If you reproduce that picture on
a postcard and give 1t indiscriminate sale at
iive cents you are depending on it's lascivious
appeal rather than its artistic appeal. In
the same way copy of Boccaccio's 'Decam-
eron' on a back shelf of a book store is a
different proposition from window display
Of Boccaccio.
Just because a book is eighty years old
that doesn't license Il for indiscriminate sale.
The Supreme Court has decided that rare
editions of classics may be sold generally.
Ii is presumed that at a high price these
books will not come into the hands Of the
young. If the books were published with
cheap paper covers and on sale at any public
newsstand they would become a nuisance
and the courts would prohibit their dis
tribution.