THE SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT ARTISTS has been incorporated under the laws of New York for the purpose of holding exhibitions in which all artists may participate independently of the decisions of juries. The need for such a society must be clear to all who are familiar with the conditions of the art-world. On one hand we have the frank statement of the established art societies that they cannot exhibit all the deserving work submitted to them because of lack of space. On the other hand such exhibitions as take place at private galleries must, by their nature, be formed from the ranks of artists who are already more or less known; moreover, no one exhibition at present gives an idea of contemporary American art in its ensemble, or permits comparisons of the various directions it is taking, but shows only the work of one man or a homogeneous group of men. The great need, then, is for an exhibition, to be held a given period each year, where artists of all schools can exhibit together — certain that whatever they send will be hung and that all will have an equal opportunity. For the public, this exhibition will make it possible to form an idea of the state of contemporary art. No such survey could be obtained from a dozen visits to the exhibitions of former years, when none could claim to be thoroughly representative.

The program of the Society of Independent Artists, which is practically self-explanatory, has been taken over from the Société des Artistes Indépendants of Paris. The latter Society, whose salon is the second oldest in France, has done more for the advance of French art than any other institution of its period. A considerable number of the most prominent artists of the present generation and the preceding one established their reputations at its annual exhibitions. It has more members, sells more works and is on a firmer financial basis than any other of the four great salons. The reason for this

success is to be found in the principle adopted at its founding in 1884 and never changed: "No jury, no prizes."

The first clause of this watchword was foreshadowed by the great Ingres when he said in his report to the Commission Permanente des Beaux-Arts, over sixty years ago: "A jury, whatever be the means adopted for its formation, will always work badly. The need of our time is for unlimited admission [to the Salon]. . . . I consider unjust and immoral any restriction tending to prevent a man from living from the product of his work." The "no jury" system, then, ensures a chance to exhibit to artists of every school, and, as a matter of fact, every school is represented at this salon, from the most conservative to the most radical. In the case of the present Society the same result is assured by the presence among the founders of the Society of distinguished artists who represent every important tendency in contemporary art and who will participate in its exhibitions.

The second principle of "no prizes" received its best explanation and endorsement when M. Renoir said in an interview, five years ago, that the thing needed for the placing of artists on an equal footing before the public, their final judge, was the abolition of the artificial distinctions of the prize system.

A third and important measure for obtaining equality of opportunity for all exhibitors has been adopted by the directors of the Society who govern its proceedings for this year. It consists in hanging all works in alphabetical order, thus relieving the hanging committee of the difficulties raised by their personal judgments as to the merits of the exhibits.

There are no requirements for admission to the Society save the acceptance of its principles and the payment of the initiation fee of one dollar and the annual dues of five dollars. All exhibitors are

thus members and all have a vote for the directors and on the
decisions made by the Society at its annual meetings. The principle
of "no jury — no prizes" precluding special advantages to any
individual, any group or any tendency, the offices of the body
(presidency, secretaryship, etc.) are purely administrative. The
several matters briefly stated above have been fixed by the By-Laws,
copies of which will be sent to members upon request for them to
the Secretary.

The exhibition of 1917 will be held at the Grand Central
Palace, in the month of April. Each exhibitor will have sufficient
space for AT LEAST two pictures, hung in daylight, with one on the
line. ARTISTS ARE URGED TO ENROLL AT ONCE, as the lists of
exhibitors for the year will be closed after public notice has been
given by the directors. Applicants will receive supplementary
information as to the date when works must be sent in, etc.

For the convenience of applicants, enrollment cards accompany
the present notice; more of the same will be forwarded on request.
Artists may also apply by letter, stating their acceptance of the
principles of the Society and their intention to participate in the
exhibition of 1917.

Address all communications to the Secretary,

JOHN R. COVERT

20 WEST 31ST STREET

TELEPHONE :

MADISON SQUARE 7079

NEW YORK CITY

SELF-SEEKING AND JEALOUSY ARE THE ROOT
OF VIRTUALLY ALL INTRIGUE. IN NO FIELD
OF ACTIVITY IS THIS TRUER THAN IN THAT
OF PHOTOGRAPHIC AMBITIONS. THE FIVE LET-
TERS—WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE TO
MR. FRAPRIE—HEREWITH PUBLISHED WERE
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION; BUT IN
VIEW OF THE PETTY INTRIGUE THAT HAS
BEEN GOING ON CONTINUOUSLY FOR SOME
YEARS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHIC WORLD, I FEEL
THAT IN JUSTICE TO THE PHOTO-SECESSION,
TO “CAMERA WORK,” AND, ABOVE ALL, TO
MYSELF, THESE LETTERS SHOULD BE CIRCU-
lated amongst those who are interested
in the truth. The letters speak for
THEMSELVES.

ALFRED STIEGLITZ.

The following letter was written on August 11th, 1910, by Mr. Alfred Stieglitz to Mr. Fraprie, Editor of "American Photography:"

DEAL BEACH, August 11, 1910.
TO THE EDITOR "AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHY."

MY DEAR MR. FRAPRIE:—Ever since, some eight or more
years ago, you entered the field of photographic literature as a
means of livelihood—you will remember your repeated state-
ments to me that you were in photography chiefly for the money
in it—you have been persistent in the statement that the work
of the Secessionists is antiquated and was not representative of
the modern spirit of American photography. I have no idea
what you may mean by "representative" or by "modern spirit."
And I have a strong suspicion that you yourself do not know.
Heretofore, I made it a rule to ignore your constant misstatements
about the Secession, as well as the fictitious claims about your
followers, or rather those whose interests you profess to repre-
sent. But, in view of your recent attacks on the coming Albright
Art Gallery Exhibition, the indirect insult to its directors, and
the self-evident deceit towards your own innocent readers, it is
time to "call your bluff," so I am going to make you a sporting
offer. You must have some sporting blood in you. Every true
American has.

For all these years in vain I have scanned the pages of your
various periodicals and trade-organs for an inkling as to where
I might be able to find some of the work of those whose
radiance you so mysteriously make invisible. *But perhaps I*
*am the blind one!* To convince myself I make you and your
followers the following proposition:

That an exhibition shall be held in some gallery within a year
—the choice of gallery and location to be left to you, should you
so desire. This exhibition shall contain 200 photographs. One
hundred of these shall be selected by myself and shall represent
the work of at least ten Secessionists; the other 100 shall be
selected by you and shall represent those great American
Unknowns of yours. As for the number of the Unknowns to be
represented in your collection you may suit yourself; I don't
want to handicap you in any way. Seven judges shall be

appointed; they should be selected from the directorships of
prominent American Art institutions. You shall appoint
three, and I, three. The seventh shall be selected by the six
thus appointed. I suggest "Art Directors," not because I
believe all of them necessarily competent judges on "Art"
matters, but because I believe that this selection will meet with
your approval—you have faith in officialdom. This Board of
Judges shall decide which of the two collections, in its opinion,
represents the more valuable contribution, as personal expression
from a plastic point of view—in short, which it considers the
more "artistic." I FURTHERMORE CHALLENGE YOU TO POST
$1,000, TO MY $2,000—THE STAKES TO GO WITH THE VERDICT.
As you may be possibly one of those gentle spirits objecting to
"betting" in any form, I am willing to alter the form of this
part of the challenge so as to make it more agreeable to
your moral attitude, and possibly thereby also adding
dignity to the affair. In the event of the verdict being
unfavorable to the Secession collection, I am willing to do-
nate $2,000 to any such charitable institution the cause of
which your magazine may be furthering—yourself naturally
excluded. Should the verdict be against you the $1,000 you have
posted to go to the St. John's Guild. Inasmuch as I am offering
double your stakes I am subtly inducing the Judges in their
capacity as humanitarians to find a verdict against me, for
charity will thereby be the gainer by $1,000. Now, my dear
Mr. Fraprie, don't try to crawl—I'm in dead earnest—be a
sport, and show yourself a genuine friend of truth and charity
through our much abused photography.

Yours truly,

(Signed) ALFRED STIEGLITZ.

N. B.—Should there be any difficulty for you to post your $1,000, you ought to have no trouble in raising it amongst your numerous followers whose reputation is at stake quite as much as your own. Copies of this challenge have been sent to the editors of the photographic press, to the photographic trade, and to the photographic societies. The only reply to this challenge that I will take any notice of will be the posting of $1,000. Money talks—all else is twaddle.

6

The following letter was written on June 16th,
1910, by Mr. Alfred Stieglitz to Mr. Walter
Zimmermann, Chairman of the Print Committee,
Philadelphia Photographic Society, Philadelphia:

PHOTO-SECESSION, 291 FIFTH AVENUE,
New York, June 16, 1910.

MY DEAR MR. ZIMMERMANN:—The old saying, “All roads lead to Rome,” might be applied to your missive recently addressed to Miss Sage, Dr. Kurtz’s successor as Director of the Albright Art Gallery in Buffalo. The letter, as Miss Sage has notified you, she forwarded to me. Owing to a great pressure on my time it has been impossible to write to you before this. You will pardon the delay. Let me inform you first of all that the present Director of the Albright Art Gallery was Dr. Kurtz’s confidential secretary for years prior to his unexpected and most untimely death. Naturally she is fully conversant with his plans and ideas, and I know that she is endeavoring to carry them out in his spirit as faithfully as is possible. For your own quietude of mind, let me tell you that the exhibition to be held this November was first thought of by Dr. Kurtz about twenty-eight months ago. The doctor spent many hours with me then, and upon later dates at the Secession headquarters, deliberating on and considering plans for a special photographic exhibition run on Secession principles. At a lengthy meeting about two weeks prior to his death, the plan as it stands to-day was virtually decided upon. The Secession spirit as Dr. Kurtz understood, and Miss Sage understands that term was to be the underlying principle of the exhibition. I fear, my dear Mr. Zimmermann, that you, after all the years that you have been identified with photography, do not yet—even at this late date—grasp those principles. If you did, your letter to Miss Sage could never have been written. On the contrary you would have rejoiced that after photography’s long struggles, the fundamental principle of recognition had been finally, officially and publicly acknowledged by an Art Institution of the prestige of the Albright Art Gallery. Neither that institution nor the Secession is interested in the politics of photography. The special privileges you

7

request for the Philadelphia Society I cannot accord. Those members of your organization who feel that they have done something in photography of actual pictorial value will, I can assure them, receive the same fair hearing from the judges that all other photographers will receive. Even the members of the Photo-Secession—naturally barring those invited to exhibit in the Invitation Section, which will be very limited—should they wish to participate in the exhibition, will have to submit to the same conditions as other photographers. The only body of workers that I have invited as a group are the Photo-Pictorialists of Buffalo. This invitation has only been extended to the group as a 'pretty compliment to the home of the Albright Art Gallery, and the exception has been made possible because of the smallness of the group which, from its inception, has had pictorial photography as its sole aim and has, during its existence, proven itself at least dignified.

Hoping that you will exert your valuable and enthusiastic influence upon the talent in your Society to give itself a chance at Buffalo—the exhibition will be a memorable one—I remain,

Yours truly,

(Signed) ALFRED STIEGLITZ.

N.B.—It is impossible for me to refrain from adding that your letter to Miss Sage contained certain claims for the Philadelphia Society which may be considered misleading. It is true that ten years ago the Philadelphia Society achieved a “world-wide reputation” through its Salon. But is it not a fact that the Society as at present constituted was actually directly responsible for the killing off of these very exhibitions? Did not the present Society repudiate the management and standard of the first three Salons, which had been the very ones to give the Philadelphia Society at the time its “world-wide reputation”? And, in view of that outrageous repudiation, did I not feel impelled from self-respect to resign my Honorary Membership from the Society? Did not the fourth Salon, the only one the present Society can lay claim to having managed and the only one with which you were connected, deal a death-blow to the Philadelphia Society as far as its “world-wide reputation” was concerned? Authentic records show most conclusively that the moving spirit

which brought about the success of the first three Salons—which gave the Philadelphia Society the “world-wide reputation” you now recall with so much pride to the Director of the Albright Art Gallery—is the identical one responsible for the unqualified and continued successes of the Photo-Secession. Furthermore, has it not escaped your memory that since that fateful Fourth Salon the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts has refused to identify itself in any manner with the Philadelphia Photographic Society, while it did officially recognize the Secession and its claims for photography four years ago? Did it not at that time invite the Secession to arrange the only exhibition of photographs held within the Academy walls since the collapse of the Salons? The Albright Art Gallery is in reality now following in the footsteps of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts with the difference that, whereas, the latter institution in its recognition of the Photo-Secession at the time virtually only implied its official full acceptance of photography as a medium of art expression—as that term is defined by the Secession—the Albright Art Gallery does not content itself with implying, but fearlessly, over the signature of its Director, unequivocally states publicly that it does officially recognize photography as a medium of art expression. This is the first instance in which an Art Institution has gone on record unequivocally as to its opinion and standing regarding the much fought-over question, whether photography could be considered a medium of art expression. Furthermore, the Albright Art Gallery has made the public statement that it is mainly through the labors of the Photo-Secession that this unequivocal recognition has been granted. That the Secession is fully entitled to this distinction the international records of pictorial photography will readily show. And now, Mr. Zimmermann, if you and your Society are really the true friends of photography you believe yourselves to be, you will try to forget the existence of both the Secession and the Philadelphia Society, and rejoice in the important victory gained for photography itself.

To
MR. WALTER ZIMMERMANN,
CHAIRMAN PRINT COMMITTEE,
PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY.

8

9

The following letter was written on August 1st, 1910, by Mr. Alfred Stieglitz to Mr. Walter Zimmermann, Philadelphia:

PHOTO-SECESSION, 291 FIFTH AVENUE,
August 1, 1910.

MY DEAR MR. ZIMMERMANN:—

Not having been in town for some time your letter reached me late. When I last wrote you I had definitely decided that any further controversy you would wish to have with me would have to take place at 291 Fifth Avenue. But your letter just received again contains some such astounding misconceptions about the Photo-Secession and myself that I feel impelled once more to correct them. First of all, you speak of: "Recognizing the great importance of the work that you are doing for you and yours in pictorial photography, etc." Now, what in the world does that mean? You herein show for the nth time that you have *no conception* *whatever of what I am doing or have done*. You do not seek truth, but accept as evidence anything that comes your way. I really do not know who "you and yours" are you allude to. In fact, I am working for *you* quite as much as for any one else, if you could only see it, and that in *spite of yourself*. As I have repeatedly stated publicly I am working for the recognition of a universal principle which is not an obvious one and which you make it seem is beyond your vision. For the recognition of that principle I have been struggling in one shape or another since I was a very young man, and that means for many years. My scope is by no means as narrow as you and yours seem to think. The narrowness I fear is with you and yours. As far as exhibitions are concerned, to me they are only of any meaning whatever if they are a public demonstration of a *positive advance* in or a *summing up* of the really genuine that has been done in any field of work. Exhibitions, as exhibitions, to me, have always been an abomination, for, as a rule, they are nothing more than a market-place for the mediocre or the parading-ground for the stupid vanities of the small mind. As for the Secession and the "outside" world, that world which worries you so much, you here too show your ignorance of my attitude towards it. The conclusive proof that I do recognize

10

not only the possibility, but the probability, of talent existing outside of the so-called Secession ranks, is shown in the fact that when the Albright Art Gallery invited the Secession to hold an exhibition of its work in Buffalo, it was I *who virtually insisted in making the exhibition an open one*. Dr. Kurtz's original idea was to hold an invitation exhibition, and he asked the Secession for its advice and help. Dr. Kurtz sought the Secession—the Secession never approached him. The Secession never approached any institution; it has always been fighting for full recognition and it realizes that only through its own work and its own activities it can *compel* that recognition. At that first meeting, in which Dr. Kurtz sought the Secession, it was clearly stated by me to Dr. Kurtz upon what conditions the Secession would co-operate with him. He accepted those terms and they are those as they stand to-day and under which the present exhibition is to be held. All other statements are based either upon intentional misrepresentation or, what is more likely to be the case, ignorance of the facts. Arranging a show as that originally planned, would have been child's play. In introducing an "Open Section" into the exhibition, due to the Secession's sense of justice towards those worthy photographers it believed might exist, but whom it had had no opportunity of reaching, I created a lot of additional work for myself. That work which was begun with so much pleasure and enthusiasm has been made very irksome and distasteful on account of the same petty annoyances, the same jealousies, etc., and from the same sources that have been always at work in this country misrepresenting the Secession and my every attitude. I had hoped that after the Secession for eight years had stood aloof from every photographic exhibition in America held outside of its own walls (its own Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts Exhibition held four years ago, and the one at the Galleries of the National Art Club, two years ago, excepted) and had demonstrated publicly and continuously during those years what it really was, what its aims and what it could do by itself unaided, that you and yours might finally see some light. But the evolution in those eight years has meant nothing whatever to all of you. Instead of "bringing the elements" together, as they profess they wish to, those stupid people are the very ones doing everything in their power to disgust all the *genuine* talent, inside

11

and outside of the Secession, with all photographic exhibitions. A similar spirit was partially responsible for finally killing the Linked Ring in London. Such are the ultra-modern friends of photography! And now you ask me to get to work and use my good offices to "bring together," to "unite," to "organize" all the factions. My dear Mr. Zimmermann, don't you realize that you and men like you, sincere and earnest perhaps, are the very ones preventing that, even were I to try? Was not the American Salon, in which you were a leading force, a grand uniting of all America, barring the Secession? Did not that organization wave the American flag most frantically, and did the Secession make one single attempt to rob you and yours of that pleasure? The Secession went its own way at the time in spite of flag-waving and the cannonades of the whole American photographic press—*Camera Work*, of course, excluded—announcing the wonderful triumphs of the Salon! And what has become of that enthusiasm of yours about that wonderful All-America show of which you were part-soul? Why invariably all this hubbub about the Secession? It represents but a handful of men, and you and yours certainly seem to represent the rest of the universe. Why do you now need our help if we are so narrow, so one-sided and so few? I have been through "organization," through the endeavor to "unite," not only in this country but in Europe; I know the photographic game from A to Z and Z to A. I know the cry of those howling for fair play and mob representation; I also know those who are comparatively silent and are working for justice and dignity and who ignore the cry of the mob. "Getting together" in your sense means endless twaddle in endless meetings, a waste of funds, a waste of time and energy—it means a compromise. And in matters like these there is no compromise. Those who think alike and sympathize sooner or later find each other and pull together towards a common goal. With such "organization" is unnecessary. The Secession has done its work conscientiously and consistently, and it has no real organization outside of that of faith and enthusiasm and in those principles I and friends stand for. It has no constitution. It has no meetings. It has primarily an underlying big spirit and it does an endless amount of constant drudgery willingly and towards a very definite goal which may be reached, God knows when, by others. The Seces-

12

sion does not stand for material things. In such matters, I quite agree with you, organization like labor unions and political parties may be essential for mutual welfare and progress, but in art matters, I can assure you, organization means gradual and certain stagnation.

And now supposing that in spite of all my convictions, based on an extended and long experience, I were to listen to the entreaties of you and yours and give you that help you repeatedly ask from me. Are you aware that before me I have letters from London, from Vienna, and several cities in Germany, with similar entreaties? Everywhere there seems to be the same dissatisfaction with existing conditions—and it is good that it is so—and the Secession is entreated to put a renewed life and unity of purpose into them. Of course I ought to feel much flattered, but I assure you I'm not. Had I the strenuousness of a hundred Roosevelt, the sagacity of a hundred Washingtons and the patience of a hundred Lincolns I fear I could not do for you and yours, nor your similar counterpart in Europe, what is asked of me. Those seeking my help do not generally know what they themselves want. And those who do not even know as much as that can never be helped to anything but oblivion. You see, Mr. Zimmermann, you are only one of hundreds with suggestions to me and no two suggestions are alike. In art, and in life, too, for that matter, the really worthy help themselves—they do their work, the work they feel they must do in spite of all conditions. All other work is worthless, even if for a time it appears successful. It is the genuine and lasting in everything I look for and which fascinates me. Time alone will show whether my instinct, my experience and everlasting self-criticism have helped me to find such. In the meantime I can perhaps give you one piece of very definite advice—do not worry too much about the oiling of the machinery. It is very possible that the machine you are trying to oil is antiquated, useless, and ready for the junk-heap, and you fail to realize it.

Yours truly,

(Signed) ALFRED STIEGLITZ.

N.B.—Should you find it necessary to reply to this letter don't expect an answer. I really have no right to use any more time nor energy to continue this exchange of ideas.

13

The following letter was written on March 18th, 1910, by Mrs. Annie W. Brigman to Mr. F. J. Mortimer, Editor of the "Amateur Photographer," London:

PHOTO-SECESSION, 291 FIFTH AVENUE,
New York, March 18, 1910.

EDITOR "AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER,"
LONDON, ENGLAND.

DEAR SIR:—Accidently this morning I ran across the late number of the "Amateur Photographer," and to my disgust and surprise I found two of my pictures reproduced therein. Inasmuch as I know that you have neither received my permission nor the permission from anybody else authorized to speak for me, I would esteem it a great favor to know by what right you have reproduced the two pictures alluded to in your issue of March 8th. I know it is not the custom of a decent English publishing house to appropriate things not belonging to it; therefore, I feel there must be some oversight in your case which has led to the false position in which you have involved your firm. It is my impression that you may possibly have cribbed these things of mine from "Camera Work," as I do not see how you could have gotten hold of originals in any other way. If this surmise on my part be really based upon fact, the least you could have done is to have given credit to that magazine.

If, on the other hand, this conjecture be unfounded and you have cribbed from elsewhere—which elsewhere be unknown to me—you at least might have given credit to that elsewhere. Personally, as you can see by the above, I feel most aggravated, and I hope you will be able to correct what now seems to me to be a dishonorable act.

This language may appear strong, but the circumstances of the case seem to warrant it.

Yours very truly

(Signed) ANNIE W. BRIGMAN.

N.B.—I am fully aware that legally I have no claim whatever on you, as the photographs have not been registered in Great Britain, but that fact as far as I am concerned does not alter the case.

14

The following letter was written on April 12th, 1910, by Mr. Alfred Stieglitz to Mr. F. J. Mortimer, Editor of the "Amateur Photographer," London:

PHOTO-SECESSION, 291 FIFTH AVENUE,
New York, April 12, 1910.

MY DEAR MR. MORTIMER:—

Yesterday I received your letter expressing your astonishment at the attitude taken up by Mrs. Brigman and myself toward you, and remonstrating that an injustice had been done you in our criticism of your conduct in the matter of the reproduction of Mrs. Brigman's photographs from "Camera Work." You are also good enough to submit certain matters of fact by way of extenuation and justification. Permit me to say that both Mrs. Brigman and myself would have welcomed eagerly all that you submit had it fulfilled its claim; but, after carefully reading your letter, we find, that so far from justifying yourself, your letter has but confirmed us both in the conclusion we had already arrived at.

On your own statement you took what you had no right to take, and you took it without even the courtesy of an acknowledgment of its source. To tell us now that you wrote to Mrs. Brigman on March 4th, asking her permission for the use of her work, but aggravates the impression left on us. For on that date the "Empire Number" of the "A. P." (in which the two photographs in question appear) had already been issued and placed on sale on the London news-stands. Furthermore, Mrs. Brigman, in California, could not have made you aware of her disposition toward your request until after the lapse of at least five weeks from the time of your writing here for her permission, when it would have been absolutely impossible for you to take any action had her reply been in the negative. I cannot see how this plea in any way palliates your conduct, a conduct which I feel myself free to say is unworthy an editor who has the good name of his journal at heart, or who has the dignity of his high profession and the furtherance of photography as an art in mind.

You are also kind enough to inform us that you have sent Mrs. Brigman some money in payment of the permission you

15

took yourself. Is not this like locking the stable door after the
horse has been stolen? But how did you know what Mrs.
Brigman would charge? You did not, so that you fixed your
own price. Did it not occur to you that Mrs. Brigman might
object to having her pictures reproduced in the "A. P." at any
price? It may enlighten you in your future relations with
artists when I tell you that Mrs. Brigman is very particular as
to the company she appears in; but on this matter Mrs. Brigman
will herself write you.

I am prone to believe, however, that even your sending the
check was an afterthought and the result of some twinges of
conscience aroused in you by the receipt of my remonstrance.
For in the letter in which you say you had already taken the
permission and now begged for its ratification, you say nothing
at all about a payment. This letter, with the copy of the "A. P."
containing the pictures in question, arrived simultaneously some
two or three weeks ago. The letter with the check, however,
has yet to arrive. You must have mailed it to Mrs. Brigman in
California after her letter of protest had reached you, so that
when it does come to hand it will have lost all its intended flavor
and will appear in all its crude nakedness of a sop to Cerberus.
I have no hesitation in saying that when Mrs. Brigman receives
the check she will return it to you by the first mail.* She resents
this insult being added to the injury.

Were you the editor of a small and unimportant sheet neither
Mrs. Brigman nor I would have wasted any time whatsoever
over the matter, but you claim to be the editor of the world's
leading photographic magazine. In the face of this claim I
cannot allow your conduct to be lightly passed over but
must enter against it the strong protest it unquestionably
merits.

There is but one way for you to make good, as we say in this
country—money will not do it—and that is by your stating
frankly in the columns of the "A. P." and over your own signa-
ture, that the pictures of Mrs. Brigman which were reproduced
were reproduced without her or my permission, and that they
were taken from the "excellent photogravures" in "Camera

* A check for £2-2-0 (ten dollars) finally did reach Mrs. Brigman.
It was returned to the publishers immediately.—A. S.

16

Work" No. XXV, and even making one of them as a special
supplement to your "Empire Number." *

With regard to your remark that you had not been receiving
"Camera Work" of late, I wish to say that the magazine has
been regularly issued. Your statement, therefore, that you assum-
ed the magazine had ceased to exist, is either conscious prevarica-
tion or a piece of cheap smartness. Whatever may have been
your assumption, however, it did not prevent you helping
yourself to the "excellent photogravures" in "Camera Work."

I did cease to send you "Camera Work" and my reason for
doing so was that I found you took every occasion in the columns
of the "A. P." to misrepresent the Photo-Secession movement
and the members who have allied themselves with it. I am not
saying this in any spirit of resentment. I am at all times only
too happy to receive criticism that is well founded and thoughtful
and more dispassionate consideration than you gave it. Both
the Secession and its organ, "Camera Work," are founded not
on claims but on facts and achievements. Neither exists for the
purpose of making money so that both can afford to be, at least,
honest. If I ceased sending you "Camera Work" before you
had shown yourself unworthy of receiving it, I may congratulate
myself on my powers of intuition.

Nevertheless, I do sincerely regret that you should have so
far forgotten your better self as to compel me to write to you in
this seeming brutal language. I regret it for many reasons of
which you are the least. I regret it most of all when I find those
who have been called to be the teachers and preachers of Art,
descending to the sordid methods of the common market-place.
The Photo-Secession movement has fought for an ideal. I shall
safeguard with all my power and most jealously what I have
been fighting for for twenty-five years; for it is all that is left
to me. Those who have known me in that period of time know
that I have never prostituted my art, either directly or indirectly,
for personal gain. Whatever else it may mean to others to me it
means devotion to an ideal, and in that devotion the first requi-
sites are honesty of mind and sincerity of purpose.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) ALFRED STIEGLITZ.

* Mr. Mortimer did print a short editorial apology for his
action.—A. S.

17

Mr. Mortimer, F. R. P. S., Editor of the "Amateur Photographer," London, makes a point of my not having printed the letters of my opponents to which mine were a reply. To avoid doing Mr. Mortimer even the suspicion of an injustice I reprint *verbatim* his editorial entitled, "The Self-Seeker," which appeared in the "Amateur Photographer," September 20, 1910, together with my reply:—

"We have on previous occasions expressed our admiration for the individual work of many of the members of that body of American pictorialists known as the "Photo-Secession." It is a pity, therefore, to note that Mr. Stieglitz, of New York, who "bosses" the concern, adopts such curious methods to achieve notoriety at any price. Our readers may remember the two examples of work by Mrs. Annie Brigman, reproduced in THE A. P. "Empire Number," and our acknowledgment that they were reproductions from photogravures in CAMERA WORK and not from originals. Mr. Stieglitz promptly seized the opportunity to write a long, abusive, and inaccurate letter to us, pointing out *inter alia* his own high moral standard and the entire wickedness of the Editor of the A. P. It has since come to our knowledge that Mr. Stieglitz tried to induce the editors of photographic papers in America and England, and possibly on the continent, to publish this precious example of vituperation, for the purpose, we suppose, of injuring THE A. P. As the editors were gentlemen, he was told to mind his own business. Foiled in this direction, he has now published a series of five abusive and quarrelsome letters to editors (ourselves included) and others, in the hopes, we imagine, that they may be quoted by the smaller fry of the photographic world. The title of the pamphlet—for some reason best known to himself— is "Photo-Secessionism and Its Opponents." He loudly trumpets his ideals, which appear to be of the self-seeking and get-off-the-earth type, and we note he carefully avoids publication of the replies to his letters. It is difficult to ascertain quite where the opposition to his pet schemes comes in—unless it is

5

in his imagination—especially if we take as an example the letter
to ourselves, which merely consists of an outbreak regarding the
publication of the two pictures referred to in THE A. P. No,
Mr. Stieglitz, it is too thin. Hitting below the belt in this manner
will never further your cause one iota."

AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. F. J. MORTIMER, F. R. P. S.,
EDITOR OF THE "AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER."

New York, October 10, 1910.

SIR:—

I welcome your "Editorial Comment" of September 20th,
1910, entitled "The Self-Seeker," not because it affords me an
opportunity to reply to the mis-statements of facts it sets forth,
nor because it places in my hands a rod with which to castigate
one who is poltroon enough to shelter himself behind malicious
fabrications, not yet because it gives me pleasure to point the
finger of scorn at a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society,
who so far forgets the dignity of his office as editor of an influ-
ential magazine and his position as a councillor of an honorable
institution, as to make use of the contemptible methods of a
despicable journalism to jeer at and belittle me and my con-
frères. I do not welcome it for these reasons. It is never an
inspiring sight to see any man sacrifice the best of his humanity
in order to get the better of an opponent.

I do, however, welcome your editorial in that it furnishes me
with an excuse which otherwise might savor of impertinent
obtrusiveness, for a restatement of what the Photo-Secession
spirit is, that your readers may learn for themselves if these
are, indeed, as you so prettily phrase it, "of the self-seeking
and get-off-the-earth type."

But first, I will, with or without your permission, correct
your mis-statements of facts and lay bare the naked viciousness
of your innuendos.

You say you reproduced the two examples of Mrs. Annie
Brigman's work and acknowledged them to be reproduced
from photogravures in CAMERA WORK. There is no doubt about
your having reproduced the examples of Mrs. Brigman's work,
but your present statement is so worded as to make the reader
believe that your acknowledgment of the source was simul-
taneous with your reproduction. You know this is not so. You
reproduced the photogravures without any acknowledgment.
It was because you failed in this proper duty that I wrote you
the letter which you now complain was "a hit below the belt."

6

7

It was only after you received that letter which pointed out to
you your unseemly and graceless conduct that you made the
acknowledgment. If this "hitting below the belt" compels an
editor and an F. R. P. S. to act honorably, then am I indeed glad
of the prompt efficacy of my blow.

"It has since come to your knowledge," you say, "that Mr. Stieglitz tried to induce the editors of photographic papers in America and England, and possibly on the continent, to publish this precious example of vituperation [i.e., my letter to you], for the purpose, we suppose, of injuring THE A. P."

Your supposition, Mr. F. J. Mortimer, F. R. P. S., does
you no credit. It is on a par with the whole tone of your com-
ment. It is because I have such an esteem for "THE A. P."
and recognize its influence that I am jealous of its good name
and good conduct. And it was because of this jealousy that I
wrote you the letter that you might become alive to the responsi-
bility of your position as its editor, and that you might rise in
dignity to the dignity you assumed. How mistaken I was in
my appeal, your present "editorial comment" is a pathetic
proof.

At the time I sent you the letter which has so incensed you,
I informed you that I was also sending copies of it to Messrs.
Hazell, Watson & Viney (the publishers of THE A. P.), to
Mr. R. Child Bayley, editor of "Photography and Focus,"
and to the editor of "The British Journal of Photography."
I made no request to any of these gentlemen to publish the
letter. My reason for sending it to them was to make them
aware of the injustice done by editorial indiscretion. To no
one on the continent of Europe did I either send the letter or
communicate in any manner on the matter. The only editor
in America who became aware of my communication to you
was Mr. Fraprie, and to him I read the letter, without giving
him a copy of it, when he chanced one day to call on me. I
read the letter to him in the presence of other gentlemen inter-
ested in photography. Mr. Fraprie expressed his surprise at
the time as to how you had obtained the Brigman pictures, and
remarked that he was glad he was not the cause of its writing.

So far by way of direct answer to what has come to your
knowledge. What has now come to your knowledge is what
you always had knowledge of. But what is behind your

8

peculiar phrase—"possibly on the continent" ? You have no
knowledge here. Yet you drag in this phrase of invidious
suggestion without rhyme or reason. It is as if I should say
that Mr. F. J. Mortimer, F. R. P. S., was a friend of Mr.
Fraprie, a correspondent of Mr. Zimmerman, and possibly in
a conspiracy with both these individuals against me.

But who, may I ask, are the editors you state told me to
mind my own business? Will you name one? The day after
I read your "editorial comment" I received a copy of a joint
letter from the editors of "The British Journal of Photography"
and "Photography and Focus," addressed to you, asking you
to publish their letter and straightly denying your editorial
statement that they had told me to mind my own business when
I sent them copies of my letter to you. I take the liberty to
quote from this letter of Mr. G. E. Brown and Mr. R. Child
Bayley, the final paragraph: "We shall be glad if you will allow
us to disassociate ourselves entirely from the statements in
your paragraph."

Fie, fie, Mr. F. J. Mortimer, F. R. P. S.! It would seem as
if you intend to keep me busy "hitting you below the belt"
in my endeavors to arouse your sense of decency.

"Foiled in this direction," you go on to say, in my endeavors
to induce editors to print my letters to you, "he has published
a series of five abusive and quarrelsome letters to editors (our-
selves included) and others, in the hope, we imagine, that they
may be quoted by the smaller fry of the photographic world."

You do your imagination an injustice, Mr. F. J. Mortimer,
F. R. P. S., by so paltry a suggestion. The imagination which
could call my letters "abusive and quarrelsome" and which
could see a volume of correspondence "to editors and others"
in my poor four letters to two editors and one gentleman, should
surely have given riper fruit than this impoverished hope. The
imagination of the writer of so extraordinary a lucubration as
this editorial comment is lost in its present sphere of activity.
It belongs to the old order of travelling minstrels who gave us
our fables and our fishermen's tales.

Believe me, Mr. F. J. Mortimer, F. R. P. S., I have no need
to ask editors, either the big or the little fry, for publicity. I
printed 1000 copies of my pamphlet "Photo-Secessionism and Its
Opponents," and sent copies of it to public libraries, art insti-

9

tutions, art patrons, and art editors in all places where I believed
a just understanding of the conditions in the photographic
world was necessary. Had I so pleased I could have printed
the letters in CAMERA WORK, but I do not care to introduce a
controversy of this nature into its pages. CAMERA WORK is a
record, not of bereavements, but of achievements.

I waited sometime before publishing my pamphlet in order
to give you an opportunity to explain that your appropriation
of the Brigman pictures was an oversight. You failed to take
advantage of my grace and thereby lost your soul. Immediately
on the heels of your "latrocity" came criticisms, written and
printed, of me and the Photo-Secession, from Mr. Zimmerman
and Mr. Fraprie, for the attitude I was assuming in my man-
agement of the coming Buffalo Exhibition. In order to
anticipate any possible misrepresentation or misunderstanding
I decided to print my replies to Mr. Zimmerman and Mr.
Fraprie, in which I had explained my position and used the
pamphlet so framed as a public answer. I included my letter
to you, not because you yourself meant anything, but because
the letter to you contributed to the exposing of a perilous situa-
tion for which you and others were responsible. As I hold the
future well-being of photography very dear I must see to it that
those forces which militate against it be opposed and destroyed.
That is one of my self-seeking "ideals." I did not print the
letters of my opponents because my letters either quoted or
implied all that was best in their letters, and in no point did I
misrepresent or do them any injustice.

I am not surprised at your inability to understand the
meaning of Photo-Secessionism, even though my letters in the
pamphlet were written and published for the very purpose of
explaining it. Its spirit is utterly opposed to the spirit of your
editorial comment. Nor am I surprised that you should inter-
pret it to mean my "pet schemes." I am not concerned about
explaining myself to you, but as I shall print this letter as an
addendum to a new edition of my pamphlet, I am taking this
opportunity to say a few words about Photo-Secessionism in
addition to what I have already said in the pamphlet.

For this purpose I can do no better than quote what Mr.
J. B. Kerfoot, one of the active men in the Photo-Secession
wrote on this matter for No. 29 of CAMERA WORK, (page 49):

10

"It is a movement which, inaugurated for a specific purpose and long known by a specific if somewhat cryptic name, has come by a process of growth and elision to be known as The Secession. This movement was inaugurated with the sole aim of vindicating the claims of photography to citizenship in the republic of art. It has long since made good this endeavor. And it is not without significance that it now finds itself, among other activities, maintaining an island of refuge for art amid the traffic of an essentially photographic philistinism. It started as a forlorn hope. It finds itself one division of a desperate, but not a despicable, army. For The Secession, although independent in its inception and individual in its development, although locally isolated and at odds with its immediate environment, neither stands alone today nor is out of touch with its times. There are other secessions. And there are hosts of secessionists, some of them all but unconscious of their enlistment. Pictorial art is but one of the least of their fields of battle. On the heights of religion, on the uplands of science, on the slopes of literature, on the level arable plains of life their fluttering standard has been, or is being, raised. They speak in diverse tongues. They wear unlike insignia. They follow unrelated leaders or fight leaderless. But they are unwittingly enrolled under one banner."

You, Mr. F. J. Mortimer, are a signal example of what Se-
cessionism does not stand for.

(Signed) ALFRED STIEGLITZ.

11

Georgia O'Hegheffe

Canyon

Texas

1917

in the south of Germany. Some one has told me that I have a peculiar habit of noticing mouths. I have, and when I see one that does not merge into the rest of the face, I want the world to know about it, a mouth that is a personality upon a person.

He has a manner of speaking at once quick and hesitating, perhaps a little because he speaks through his nose, I don't know, though I have tried to define and to place it, a very individual speech, an individuality of respiration.

Presently he turned to me and introduced

"Ah," say they, "such conception of line and color!"

AND yet I was in awe of no one; I attempted not to

show the arrogance of my upper lip that would persist in an attempt to curl, probably because I wanted to cry and wouldn't, and I felt cold because I wanted so dreadfully to feel warm and hopeful and one with them.

But all of this is entirely out of the way except to give a small pen picture of myself at the time when Mr. Alfred Stieglitz first came into my life. Mabel Dodge was holding up a painting of mine, extraordinarily bad, too, and she was hesitating between approval and disapproval—"Anyway," she said, "go up to 201 Fifth avenue and ask for Mr. Stieglitz and show him; perhaps he can help you."

Two ninety-one is at the top of an old-fashioned house overlooking the avenue. The elevator opened onto a little vestibule and gave a hint of a picture hung well beyond. A man was standing with one elbow on the shelving that runs entirely around this room, his feet were crossed, and he was talking to two or three people, on the same order as those I had met the night before. He did not look up when I entered, nor did he seem to notice me. He was telling some tale beginning, "That makes me remember." interjected with "Well, say."

His hair was longer than usual with men, and turning then iron gray. The eyebrows were bushed, the eyes deep set and assumed a certain uncertainty. He asserts that he was born in this country, yet I noticed then that his mouth had that fine and sudden stoppage of lip seen mostly

me to those present, at the same time introducing himself to me. They left soon, and he quite naturally took the portfolio with which I was laden out of my arm.

HE looked the pictures over and asked me what I thought of them. I had not expected this question, and answered, "I'm quite crazy about them."

He seemed pleased. "You're the first woman," he said slowly. "who has been perfectly frank in that answer. Well, perhaps you're right." He put them back and began to tie them up. "And what am I to do?" I asked.

"Keep on drawing, if you really care for it, and don't try to sell them or"— There was a pause during which he looked out of the window. "Or keep right on, if you don't want to, and sell them."

That's about the best advice I ever got, and it is typically Stieglitz, though he won't like the word typical. I felt something then which later I analyzed with his help. While he seemed to care for pictures, he did not seem to know pictures; while he gave advice on pictures he seemed to be giving advice on life.

The type of all his exhibitions have been revolutionary, cubist, impressionist, irrationalist, all of them—there has been Picasso, Matisse, Rodin, Pamila Smith, Branousi Lautree—savage art called "negro" Picabia, Marsden Hartley, Dove Severeni

AN EXHIBITION OF THE RECENT WORK,—
OILS, WATER-COLORS, CHARCOAL DRAW-
INGS, SCULPTURE,—BY GEORGIA O'KEEFFE,
OF CANYON, TEXAS, WILL BE HELD AT THE
GALLERY OF THE PHOTO-SECESSION, 291
FIFTH AVENUE, (BETWEEN THIRTIETH AND
THIRTY-FIRST STREETS), NEW YORK,
OPENING ON APRIL THIRD AND CLOSING
APRIL TWENTY-SEVENTH. THE GALLERY
IS OPEN FROM TEN A. M. UNTIL SIX P. M.
DAILY, SUNDAYS EXCEPTED. ☐ ☐ ☐

8

MINA LOY

## XII

Voices break on the confines of passion
Desire Suspicion Man Woman
Solve in the humid carnage

Flesh from flesh
Draws the inseparable delight
Kissing at gasps to catch it

Is it true
That I have set you apart
Inviolate in an utter crystallization
Of all the jolting of the crowd
Taught me willingly to live to share

Or are you
Only the other half
Of an ego's necessity
Scourging pride with compassion
To the shallow sound of dissonance
And boom of escaping breath

MINA LOY

9

## XIII

Come to me There is something
I have got to tell you and I can't tell
Something taking shape
Something that has a new name
A new dimension
A new use
A new illusion

It is ambient And it is in your eyes
Something shiny Something only for you
Something that I must not see

It is in my ears Something very resonant
Something that you must not hear
Something only for me

Let us be very jealous
Very suspicious
Very conservative
Very cruel
Or we might make an end of the jostling of aspirations
Disorb inviolate egos

Where two or three are welded together
They shall become god

Oh that's right
Keep away from me Please give me a push
Don't let me understand you Don't realise me

1915

Georgia O'Keeffe
Canyon

Texas

"PHOTO-SECESSION"

291 FIFTH AVENUE

Georgia O'Keeffe
Canyon

Texas.

THE FREE SPEECH LEAGUE

At Albany, New York, on April 7, 1911, the Free Speech League was incorporated. The incorporators are; President, Leonard D. Abbott, associate editor of *Current Literature*; Vice-president, Brand Whitlock, mayor of Toledo, Ohio; Lincoln Steffens, leading progressive economist; Bolton Hall, author and lawyer; Gilbert E. Roe, law-writer; Treasurer, Dr. E. B. Foote, author of medical books; Secretary, Theodore Schroeder, author and lawyer. In the articles of incorporation the purposes of the Free Speech League are declared to be:

"The principal objects for which said corporation is formed are as follows, viz: By all lawful means to promote such judicial construction of the Constitution of the United States, and of the several states, and of the statutes passed in conformity therewith, as will secure to every person the greatest liberty consistent with the equal liberty of all others, and especially to preclude the punishment of any mere psychological offense; and, to that end, by all lawful means to op- pose every form of governmental censorship over any method for the expression, communication or trans- mission of ideas, whether by use of previous inhibition or subsequent punishment; and to promote such legis- lative enactments and constitutional amendments, state and national, as will secure these ends." The officers are all unsalaried. If you are interested send a con- tribution to

THE FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
56 East 59th St., New York City

2

FIRE AND REVOLUTION

By Hutchins Hapgood

Light is suggestively thrown on the destructive side of the revolutionary impulse by the effect which a fire had on the mind of Alfred Stieglitz, modern artistic photographer, patron of struggling artists with temperament, whose picture gallery is the hospitable home for very new but sincere experiments in plastic form.

Some time ago, a fire started in an apartment occupying the floor beneath the Stieglitz's gallery. Mr. Stieglitz was told about it over the telephone at one o'clock in the morning. As the building is old and inflammable, Mr. Stieglitz took it for granted that his place was burned. Instead of rushing to the scene of destruction, he philosophized with his wife. He explained to her that everything he prized was gone. And in addition and more important than his personal art possessions were the entire works of several young artists who were trying to make the world see that they had something to give it.

Mr. Stieglitz thinks that these young men are trying for the real thing, without compromise with the commercial spirit and without subjection to aca-

3

demic rules. He knew that the loss of
their work would to them mean tragedy
and might change the course of their
lives. That these tangible manifesta-
tions of his own idealistic spirit and of
that of the artists should be destroyed
meant that for several hours Alfred
Stieglitz went through perhaps the
most intense experience of his life.

When he went to the gallery and
found that nothing had been touched
he had no feeling of relief or pleasure.
His capacity for emotion had been ex-
hausted, but talking to me recently
about the affair, he said, casually among
other things to which he attached more
importance that, if those pictures,
plates, photographs, and drawings had
been destroyed, he would have gone to
some pseudo art collection, to some gal-
lery of respectable paintings, to some
museum in which academical compro-
mise in the way of art was stored, and
would have burnt it up.

He said that he had communicated
this feeling to a friend some time after
the fire and the friend had doubted his
sincerity. But he had replied: "I cer-
tainly felt that if this work represent-
ing ideals had been destroyed something
else in the way of destruction would
have to accompany it."

That impulse on the part of an art
idealist was to me of the greatest inter-

4

est, for I have often seen in other fields
than art the same psychological ten-
dency at work. Men whose ideals are
destroyed, hampered, or combated are
likely to want to destroy things as they
are.

Every sincere and deep reformer,
whether in art, politics, religion, or in-
dustry, has ideals which he warmly
cherishes, and if these ideals cannot be
made to apply to conditions, if they are
combated and suppressed, then the men
and women holding them are likely to
become "dangerous to society," to be-
come revolutionary and destructive.

Hence the great wisdom of tolera-
tion. If all sincere ideals were received
in the hospitable social centre of the
public, if our newspapers, if our clubs,
if our gatherings, if the community in
general would welcome all ideas, no
matter how subversive of present con-
ditions, welcome them and consider them,
not legislate against them, the destruc-
tive impulse which every thwarted ideal-
ist has would not be aroused. We would
derive the good there is in every sincere
idealist; it would serve to modify our
prejudices and our injustice and our
routine habits, and at the same time
take from what most of us dislike and
fear, namely, violent revolutionary
events. In this lies the immense im-
portance of free speech and free expres-

5

sion in art, politics, and industrial matters. The people, the stand-patters, who for profit, or for an unthinking but sincere conservatism, try to suppress radical tendencies because they fear revolution and destruction, are themselves fostering revolution and destruction. The force and power of their reactionary intolerance tend to make the idealist desperate and induce him to resort to violence.

He, therefore, who stands in the way of free speech and free expression in art, politics, or industry is an enemy of society.

"Constraint is the natural parent of resistance. * * * Where men can freely communicate their thoughts and their sufferings, real or imaginary, their passions spend themselves in air, like gunpowder scattered upon the surface;—but pent up by terrors, they work unseen, burst forth in a moment, and destroy everything in their course. Let reason be opposed to reason, and argument to argument, and every good government will be safe."—Lord Erskine.

"So far as we can judge history, the great majority of people never were very self-contained under stress. Cycles of restlessness periodically seize upon the people. The average man must

6

have some sort of excitement, or he grows morbid, or becomes insane. It is very probable that our political campaigns let off national surplus steam and provide normal nervous sprees which take the place of the South American "revolutions," and leave the nation sane, and the individual more balanced in his nervous system. It is a good thing to get all classes of people to thinking the same thoughts and partaking in the same movement. Individual neuroses do not arise until a people begins to exploit individualism."—Medical Council, Aug., 1912.

"Philip II. of Spain said that a king was never more secure from the malice of his people than when their discontents were suffered to evaporate in complaint. Socrates said the sun could as easily be spared from the universe as free speech from the liberal institutions of society.
* * * Quetelet said that the press tends to deprive revolutions of their violence by hastening the reaction. * * *

"One great advantage of a free press is, that it tends to disperse the dangers that culminate in sedition. Bacon said that the surest way to prevent sedition, if the times do bear it, is to take away the matter [cause] of them. A great writer has also observed that 'Violence exerted towards opinions which falls

7

short of extermination, serves no other purpose than to render them more known and ultimately to increase the zeal and number of its abettors.’”—*Liberty of the Press, Speech and Public Worship, by Patterson.*

“When public discontents are allowed to vent themselves in reasoning and discourse, they subside into a calm; but their confinement in the bosom is apt to give them a fierce and deadly tincture. The reason of this is obvious. As men are seldom disposed to complain till they at least imagine themselves injured, so there is no injury which they will remember so long, or resent so deeply, as that of being threatened into silence. This seems like adding triumph to oppression, and insult to injury. The apparent tranquility which may ensue, is delusive and ominous; it is that awful stillness which nature feels, while she is awaiting the discharge of the gathered tempest. * * *

“If the government wishes to become more vigorous, let it first become more pure, lest an addition to its strength should only increase its capacity for mischief.”—*An Apology for the Freedom of the Press and for General Liberty, by Rev. Robert Hall.*

8

# On Seditious Opinions

By

REV. ROBERT HALL

THE law hath amply provided against overt acts of sedition and disorder, and to suppress mere opinions by any other method than reasoning and argument is the height of tyranny. Freedom of thought being intimately connected with the happiness and dignity of man in every stage of his being, is of so much more importance than the preservation of any Constitution, that to infringe the former under pretense of supporting the latter, is to sacrifice the means to the end.

9

ADVOCATING
MURDER

BY
SIR LESLIE STEPHEN

FOR ONE, am fully prepared to listen to any arguments for the propriety of theft or murder, or if it be possible, of immorality in the abstract. No doctrine, however well established, should be protected from discussion. The reasons have been already assigned. If, as a matter of fact, any appreciable number of persons are so inclined to advocate murder on principle, I should wish them to state their opinions openly and fearlessly, because I should think that the shortest way of exploding the principle and of ascertaining the true causes of such a perversion of moral sentiment. Such a state of things implies the existence of evils which cannot be really cured till their cause is known, and the shortest way to discover the cause is to give a hearing to the alleged reasons.

Nineteenth Century Magazine, March & April, 1883.

10

War Against
Words

By Auberon Herbert

OF all the miserable, unprofitable, inglorious wars in the world [the worst] is the war against words. Let men say just whatever they like. Let them propose to cut every throat and burn every house —if so they like it. We have nothing to do with a man's words or a man's thoughts, except to put against them better words and better thoughts, and so win in the great moral and intellectual duel that is always going on, and on which all progress depends.

Westminster Gazette, Nov. 22, 1893.

11

Rightful
Punishment

TO suffer the Civil Magis-
trate to intrude his power
into the field of Opinion,
or to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles, on
supposition of their ill tendency,
is a dangerous fallacy, which at
once destroys all liberty, because
he, being of course judge of that
tendency, will make his opinions
the rule of judgment, and ap-
prove or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall
square with or differ from his
own. It is time enough for the
rightful purposes of Civil Govern-
ment for its officers to interfere
when principles break out into
overt acts against peace and
good order.

Resolutions of Virginia Legislature.

12

AN UNANSWERABLE
ARGUMENT

by
PROF. THOMAS COOPER

Indeed, no opinion or doctrine, of whatever nature it be, or whatever be its tendency, ought to be suppressed. For it is either manifestly true or it is manifestly false, or its truth or falsehood is dubious. Its tendency is manifestly good, or manifestly bad, or it is dubious and concealed. There are no other assignable conditions, no other factors of the problem.

In the case of its being mani-
festly true and of good tend-
ency, there can be no dispute.
Nor in the case of its being
manifestly otherwise; for by
the terms it can mislead no-
body. If its truth or its
tendency be dubious, it is clear
that nothing can bring the
good to light, or expose the
evil, but full and free discus-
sion. Until this takes place, a
plausible fallacy may do harm;
but discussion is sure to elicit
the truth and fix public opin-
ion on a proper basis; and
nothing else can do it.

Treatise on The Law of Libel.

13

Punishment and
Persecution.

RT. HON. T. B. MACAULAY.

HE true distinction [be
tween persecution and
punishment] is perfectly ob-
vious. To punish a man
because he has committed a
crime, or is believed, though
unjustly, to have committed
a crime, is not persecution.
To punish a man because we
infer from the nature of some
doctrine which he holds, or
from the conduct of other
persons who hold the same
doctrines with him, that he
will commit a crime, is per-
secution; and is, in every
case, foolish and wicked.

Modern British Essayists, Page 69.

14

INTELLECTUAL HOSPITALITY

BY THEODORE SCHROEDER.

To have some intelligent appreciation of how much of the knowable is yet unknown, conduces to that humility which is the beginning of wisdom. To know something of the past struggles for human progress conduces to an appreciation of how little is probably true of what we think we know. Thus to see our attainments in their true relations to past beliefs and their probable relation to future knowledge conduces to a true measure of our great ignorance. To have this is to be without censure, because without a stupid pride. To love truth more than our vain predispositions; to love harmlessness of life more than moral sentimentalism; to be free from phariseeism, because knowing the diversity and uncertainty of standards; to be unafraid of new evidence, and unoppressive toward new allegations of truth; to be controlled by a selfishness of so high an order, that your greatest happiness comes from studying all problems from the impersonal viewpoint, and making all judgments by impersonal standards; to have the desire to be right always overpowering the desire that others esteem us to be so; never to impose one's opinion by invasive force; never to be impatient, except, perhaps with dogmatism and intolerance —this is the essence of intellectual hospitality. In addition to this, if you show that rare disposition to make a substantial sacrifice for defending the right to be heard, of those whose opinions you disapprove, you would have a virtue so rare as to be almost heroic.

15

Street Speaking

THIS government was established to protect primarily the rights of men in social union, not the rights of propertyholders, merely as such. Therefore, traffic in ideas is more important than traffic in merchandise. To suppress the former on pretense of protecting the latter, even in the use of streets, is an unpardonable outrage which becomes quite intolerable when done by arbitrary police violence, or with favoritism for approved opinions.

LEONARD ABBOTT.

16