26
spoke of the decision as being significant in the world of letters.
Mr. J. S. Sumner's retort came in the form of another open letter,
written on November 11, to the New York Herald Tribune, and pub-
lished on Sunday, November 16, 1930. In it he declared, "There is
nothing sacred about the writings of Mr. Arthur Schnitzler, nor,
in fact, about the author himself,” and he immediately brings up
again the question of Hands Around. Anyone following the news-
paper write-upa will find that Sumner apparently stood practically
alone in his fight and that the newspapers, whether conservative
or radical, were in sympathy with Casanova. Sumner was said to be
"true to form" and Magistrate Gottlieb was referred to as a "just
judge" who Lismissed the "ridiculous charges." (1) A statement
by A.B.H. in the New York University obily news of October.2 can
be taken, I believe, as quite indicative of public opinion -
"It is a true service to literature to bring this book back for
general reading.
Naturally the New York City papers had contained regular re-
ports of the court proceedings and out-of-town papers had quickly
relayed the news to their readers, often poking fun at Sumner,
calling him "the official Encoper for New York City." (2) and
exclaiming, "Now, of all things, Schnitzler's Casanova's Homecoming
has been spied by Sumner." (3) John Elair Minot has put an
tional touch of humor into the whole incident bywerking that
"broad-minded Boston has not censored or questioned the book which
puritanical New York, after due deliberation by its Courts, is now
permitted to read, (4) but this was no more humorous than the
incident in court when Magistrate Gottlieb requested Mr. Sumner's
marked copy for his private liberty in order that he might not
elegram, Sept. 27, 1930.
(Slouk City), Aug. 19, 1930.
(Columbis, South Carolina), Aug. 17, 1930.
Herald (Baton), Oot. 4, 1930.