The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1928-11-23

thing If the dear sisters would let ii
alone
But | cannot for my life imagine
what you have done that would justi
fy her in thinking that you would
care for it. And | certainly would
not consider her judgment of your
taste as a compliment. AS to her be-
ing your friend: Well. | would rather
think it is she, not you, who claims
that honor
Do believe in official censors? i
do not
A system of official censorship
would put an end to all artistic or
intellectual development. Can't you
imagine what would happen il every
possible genius of the future were to
be measured by the thumb rule of
politically appointed board of CEN
sorS?
And, heavens above! What a hui
initiating confession it would be!
Don't you see? To inaugurate official
censorship would be to declare our
very civilization a failure. 1t would
deny all the hard wo. progress of
centuries. 1t would proclaim the ut
ter inadequacy of our educational sys-
TENS, our home life, and our religions.
If it has become necessary to make
common indecency illegal, and to set a
politically appointed watch over our
selves lest We give ourselves and our
children over to the evils of obscene
imaginings, to what a sorry end have
we arrived We must, indeed, be
living on very low ground. |, for one,
am not ready to concede that we have
But do believe 100 per cent in un-
official censorship.
l would have us apply here the same
principles to which we hold in our
homes and in our social intercourse.
If person is too vulgar, indecent, or
obscene in speech or habits, such a
one is ostraciZed ny decent society.
Certain characters, you know are not
tolerated in our best hotels Persons
of certain completes a.e never inyit-
ed TO our homes, or permitted to as
Sociate with our sons and daughters.
/ mean by that, that we should de-
mand for our books. plays and motion
pictures the same standards of de-
cency which by common consent reg
ulate our lives in all other things.
If these dirty scavangers who CLEAN
the shrinking materials for their books,
plays arc pictures from the sewers
and cesspools of life, are justified by
their contention that it is art, then
why place any limit upon their exhi
billions?
1t is not true that the greatest art
is indecent. The greatest art the
world has ever known has been in
spired by religion. 1t is not true that
more money is ma lie by these unclean
books, plays, and pictures. The great
est money-makerS amons books, plays
and pictures have been clean. Think
it over and you will see am right.
The plain truth is that these de-
generates who live by the putrid
offal which self-respecting artists
reject, live that way because they
like it. They are that kind of
people.
They are procurers for the pur-
poses of mental prostitution. They
breed moral pestilence. The filth
they write befouls the mind and pol
iutes the imagination. They are in
stigators of degrading immortality and
unmentionable crimes.
And to the degree that we support
these people by purchasing their
wares, we are of their kind-we are
in their class.
There is no law requiring you and
me to support them. Then why sneak
down to their level? Why not keep to
the higher ground?
These people may, Oh may not, be
artists. The artistic quality o. their
wares-l contend-has nothing to do
| with the case. Great arr may be un-
moral, but that is no reason for label
| ing obscenity art. A book, play or
| picture does not become art merely by
violating every code of human decen-
cy. Is it not possible for art to be
both great and inspiring? May not
| a work of genius be clean?
If this he pOIIvanna thinking make