30
asanovas Heinfahr
box 4/11
The book is by a very noted author, regarded as
one of the great literary men of the century.
The subject deals with the amours ofa man past
fifty-three years of age, at which period, so states
the book, his energies have waned and decayed.
The book is not to be judged as to its obscenity by
the standard of mid-Victorian days, but its char¬
acter shall be judged by this Court by the standards
prevailing at the present time. Many plays, many
books are before the public today which, if judged
by the old standards, would be barred. The stand¬
ard of life today as to plays and books, and the
very habits ofthe people, has so changed that what
was regarded as obscene and immoral yesterday is
today reckoned as being in proper taste.
The book under review at this time is infinitely
less objectionable than Madeleine“, in which case
the publisher was convicted, but which conviction
was reversed by the Appellate Court. (See Peo. vs.
Brainard).
Counsel on both sides have furnished the Court
with most excellent briefs for and against the ques¬
tion being considered. With these briefs therc has
been submitted to this Court the written opinions
of such writers as Henry L. Mencken, Theodore
Dreiser, Herbert Asbury, Heywood Broun, Dr.
Harry Elmer Barnes, Sinclair Lewis, John Cowper
Powys and others, recognized as leaders in the field
of literary art.
In the field of journalism, I find, among the
documents submitted to me, the opinion of Roy W.
Howard, Chairman of the Board of Scripps-Howard
Newspapers, who says: #t is hard to believe that
any sensible, clean-minded person could find any¬
thing offensive in the book. It is difficult to be¬
lieve that its circulation would be anything other
than a service to art and understanding. Its at¬
tempted suppression is a dangerous challengetothe
literary freedom of America, a challenge which
merits the full attention of the press and warrants
asanovas Heinfahr
box 4/11
The book is by a very noted author, regarded as
one of the great literary men of the century.
The subject deals with the amours ofa man past
fifty-three years of age, at which period, so states
the book, his energies have waned and decayed.
The book is not to be judged as to its obscenity by
the standard of mid-Victorian days, but its char¬
acter shall be judged by this Court by the standards
prevailing at the present time. Many plays, many
books are before the public today which, if judged
by the old standards, would be barred. The stand¬
ard of life today as to plays and books, and the
very habits ofthe people, has so changed that what
was regarded as obscene and immoral yesterday is
today reckoned as being in proper taste.
The book under review at this time is infinitely
less objectionable than Madeleine“, in which case
the publisher was convicted, but which conviction
was reversed by the Appellate Court. (See Peo. vs.
Brainard).
Counsel on both sides have furnished the Court
with most excellent briefs for and against the ques¬
tion being considered. With these briefs therc has
been submitted to this Court the written opinions
of such writers as Henry L. Mencken, Theodore
Dreiser, Herbert Asbury, Heywood Broun, Dr.
Harry Elmer Barnes, Sinclair Lewis, John Cowper
Powys and others, recognized as leaders in the field
of literary art.
In the field of journalism, I find, among the
documents submitted to me, the opinion of Roy W.
Howard, Chairman of the Board of Scripps-Howard
Newspapers, who says: #t is hard to believe that
any sensible, clean-minded person could find any¬
thing offensive in the book. It is difficult to be¬
lieve that its circulation would be anything other
than a service to art and understanding. Its at¬
tempted suppression is a dangerous challengetothe
literary freedom of America, a challenge which
merits the full attention of the press and warrants