30. Casanovas Heimfahrt
An en ee e e e e e e e e e e e ene Se ee e 1 e
Telegram
Salt Lake Utah
SEP
Casanova’s Homecoming'
Not Obscene, Ruling
NEW YORK (AP)—Maglstrate
Gotlieb has ruled Casanova's
Homecoming,“ by Arthur Schnitz¬
ler, is not obscene and dismissed
summons against the publishing
firm of Simon & Schuster and mem¬
bers of the firm charging them with
possessing and selling an obscene
book.
The standard of life today as to
plags and books, and the very hab¬
its of the people, have so changed
that, what was regarded as obscene
and immoral yesterday is today
reckoned as being in proper taste,“
the magistrate sald in his ruling.
Opinions of literarv figures like
Henry L. Mencken, Theodore Drei¬
ser and Sinclair Lewis were eited
by the magistrate as zupporting his
conclusion regarding the book.
He ordered John S. Sumner, hend
or the Society forthe Suppression
of vice, to return to the publishers
1564 copies of the book seized in
la rald several wecks ago.
Enquirer
Cincinnati 0
194
Magistrate Maurice Gottlieb dis¬
nissed the complaint of John S. Suni¬
ner, special agent of the Nevr York
Society for the Suppression of Vice.
against Arthur Schnitzler’s novel.
Cassanova's Homecoining,“ p#.
lished by Simon & Schuster. The
opinion of the Court was delivered
after Magistrate Gottlieb had read
the book and carefully studied briefs
submitted by Simon & Schuster’s at¬
torneys, and by the Vice Society’s
representative, John S. Sumner. The
Court also considered a memoran¬
dum in which was set forth repre¬
sentative opinions on the book from
editors, critics, educators, ministers,
physicians and other leaders of the
community. In his decision absolving
Casanova’s Homecoming“ from any
charge of obscenity, Magistrate Gott¬
lieb threw out of Court all the
charges filed by Mr. Sumner. His
Honor deciared that the book must
be measured by living standards of
our own time, not by those of the
mid-Victorian era. He hailed Arthur
Schnitzler as one of the world’s great
writers and characterized Casa¬
nova’s Homecoming' as an incontest¬
able contribution to modern litera¬
ture.
box 4/11
N F Revien
et 4-30
CACANGFN MoUT
VHoz Cnnns Schf
von ObssLm!
Saint' Sumner Is Again
Trying to Suppress the
Schnitzler Boor¬
—.—
John Seint“ Sumner is still hound¬
ing Casanova’s Homecoming.“ This
book by Arthur Schnitzler, the dis¬
tinguished Viennese novelis“, dra¬
matist and physician which has a
notable police rccord but with many
admirers nevertheless, again faces at¬
tack from the secretary of the New
York Soclety for the Suppression of
Vice. This time the veteran book of
four previous court actions must con¬
vince twenty-three citizens that it is
Hot objectionable for Distriet Attorney
Thomas C. T. Crain will present it to
the grand jury on Tuesday.
This action, for which Sumner has
been insistent, will be taken despite
the fact that the book in its new 31
edition, published by Simon & Shus¬
tor, 386 Fourth avenue, was given a
clean bill of health on September 25
by Magistrate Maurice H. Gotlieb, be¬
fore whom the publishers were brought
following a raid by Sumner.
This proved to be onig a skirmish
won by Casanova, however, with the
battle still to come. The next step was
che presentation by Mr. Sumner of
coples of the book last week to the
district attorney. Two of the as¬
estants in his office read the book and
reported on it. Although both reports
were understood to be favorable to the
book, Mr. Crain eventually decided to
leave the decision to the grand jury.
Facing a grand Jury will not be a
novel experience for Casanova's
Homecoming.“ When first published
here by Thomas Seltzer in 1923,
Saint“ Sumner proceeded against it,
but Magistrate Simpson decided the
hook was unobjectionable. The Vice
Suppression Society’'s secretary gained
the intervention of District Attorney
Banton and obtained an indictment,
whereupon Seltzer agreed to suppress
the book and destroy the plates.
When Simon & Shuster announced!
the publication of the new 31 edition
of the book during the summer, Sum¬
ner appeared at the offlces of the pub¬
lishers on August 8 with a search war¬
rant and seized 477 coples of the book.
Richard L. Simon and Lawrence W.
Hoyt, of the sales staff, and the cor¬
peration itself, were summoned to ap¬
pear before Magistrate Gotlieb.
Magistrate Gotlieb acquitted the
book of obscenity; saying that it was
not to be Judged. by Cthe standard of
mid-Victorian days.“
HEMSTREET
96 WARREN STREET
NEW FORK CITY
97
HMAL
TRTBUNR
Casanova in Court'
Mr. Sumner Still. Unreconciled-to-thell
Works of Mr. Schnitzler
To the New York Herald Tribune:
Re your editorial Casanova in
Court“ there are a few statements on
which your readers might like to hear
another view.
You intimate that “a literary master
may treat of subjects which are barred
to literary dubs.“ If this be true,
then Mr. Schnitzler, whose book yon
are defending, apparently is not a
literary master, as a noisy minority
would have us believe.
In June of this year another book
by Mr. Schnitzler came before the Ap¬
pellate Division of the Supreme Court.
In its opinion sustaining a conviction
that court-said rather sarcastically on
ithe very point which you raise:
We are then told that this cycle
which the book depiets would con¬
cededly have been à viclous cycie
in the hands of any lesser artist than
Schnitzler. We are not told wliy
Schnitzler is able to surpass all other
writers in the exquisite handling of
the licentious. That gift, however, 18
clalmed for him by the writer of the
introduction.“
You will find the same clalm made
in the preface of the Casanova book.
It is one way of apologizing for the
publication of indecency.
The Appellate Division also said of
Schnitzler in the same opinion:
This last quotation stamps the
author as a man whose thoughts thus
expressed cannot escape being char¬
acterized as indecent.“
Of course, we understand that some
newspapers have no respect for adverse
Judiclal opinions regarding books, ad¬
hering to their own attitude of in¬
tellectual aristocrats.“ However, the
application-of thé law ## the-funetion
of the courts and not of the news¬
papers. Should a magistrate or court
be swayed by newspaper comment
rather than by Judicial precedent, that
is a publie misfortune.
This puerile harping on the expres¬
sion Vmid-Victorian-days,“which wovld
mean the ’70s, has no bearing in this
case, fer which a precedent was estab¬
lished only seven years ago. But, as a
matter of fact, the latest decision of
the Appellate Court went back to de¬
cisions of 1879 and 1884 for an in¬
terpretation of the meaning and ap¬
plication of the anti-obscenlty law.
You say: Mr. Sumner has.lost his
rapport with the fäste and judgmen“
of the 1930 metropolitan community.
If you intimate that the taste and
Judgment of the 1930 metropolitan
community favor filth in books or on
the stage, which I deny, then the
rapport never existed, and so couid
not have been lost.
Tou still neglect to inform your
readers that the former publisher of
the Casanova bock was indicted by a
grand jury and that Justice Wagner.
of the Supreme Court, refused to hold
as a matter of law that the book was
not obscene. That is what “scared“ a
former publisher into withdrawing the
book, and not Mr. Sumner.
This society is a law-enforeing or¬