Peeneg. une e. A
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 sald rather sarcastically on
the very point which you raise:
We are then told that this cyele
which the book depicts would con¬
cede Hy have been à viclous cycle
in the hands of any lesser artist than
Schnitzler. We are not told wliz
Schnitzler is able to surpass all other
writers in the exquisite handling of
the licentious. That gift, however, 18
clainied for him by the writer of the
Introcuction.“
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 sal“ of
Schnitzler in the same opinion:
This last quotation stamps the
author as a man whose thoughts thus
lexpressed cannot escape being char¬
ucterlzed as indecent.“
Of course, we understand that some
newspapers have no respect for adverse
Judicial opinions regarding books, ad¬
hering to their own attitude of “in¬
tellectual aristocrats.“ However, the
application-ur thé law Is the-function
of the courts and not of the news¬
papers. Should a magistrate or court
be swayed by newspaper comment
rather than by judicial precedent, thaf
is a public misfortune.
This puerile harping on the expres¬
sion "mid-Victorian days,“ which would
mean the'70s, has no bearing in this
case, for 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 te de¬
cisions of 1879 and 1884 for an in¬
terpretation of the meaning and ap¬
plication of the antl-obscenity law.
You say: Mr. Sumner has-lost his
rapport with the täste and judgment
of the 1930 metropolitan community.“
If you intimate that the taste and
Judgment of the 1930 metropolitan
community favor filth in books or on
tlie stage, which I deny, then the
rapport never existed, and so couid
not have been lost.
You still neglect to inform vour
readers that the former publisher of
the Casanova book 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-enforcing or¬
ganizatien, and its methods and stand¬
#rds are based on law and judicial
precedent. We could not conscien¬
tlously conform to the opposite ideas
zentlemen of the press, Ligh, low
n between.
JOHN S. SUMNER,
etary New York Society for the
Suppression of Vice.
dew. York, Sept. 29, 1930.
GI
Casanovas
Heinfahrt
30 . e ne enenenen ete
HEMSTREET
96 WARREN STREET
NEW YORK CITY
6076 1939
N Y WORLD
zunr r0 READ SCHNTTZLER RooK
The question whet
Casanova's
Homecoming by A
schnitzler 18
n obscene book
rthe law will
be decided
next
week, it wa
ter
John
rthe Pr.
th As8is
astings. 8
he bock for
se probably will bo the jury n
Tuesday.
—
Ca11 Bulletin
San Francisco Calif
Oet 18-30
reae
ing
*Casanoua’s Homec
Wins Cun.rt's
Homecc
rul
ie publis
mons
of Simon & Schuster and members
of the furm.
box 4/11
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 sald rather sarcastically on
the very point which you raise:
We are then told that this cyele
which the book depicts would con¬
cede Hy have been à viclous cycle
in the hands of any lesser artist than
Schnitzler. We are not told wliz
Schnitzler is able to surpass all other
writers in the exquisite handling of
the licentious. That gift, however, 18
clainied for him by the writer of the
Introcuction.“
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 sal“ of
Schnitzler in the same opinion:
This last quotation stamps the
author as a man whose thoughts thus
lexpressed cannot escape being char¬
ucterlzed as indecent.“
Of course, we understand that some
newspapers have no respect for adverse
Judicial opinions regarding books, ad¬
hering to their own attitude of “in¬
tellectual aristocrats.“ However, the
application-ur thé law Is the-function
of the courts and not of the news¬
papers. Should a magistrate or court
be swayed by newspaper comment
rather than by judicial precedent, thaf
is a public misfortune.
This puerile harping on the expres¬
sion "mid-Victorian days,“ which would
mean the'70s, has no bearing in this
case, for 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 te de¬
cisions of 1879 and 1884 for an in¬
terpretation of the meaning and ap¬
plication of the antl-obscenity law.
You say: Mr. Sumner has-lost his
rapport with the täste and judgment
of the 1930 metropolitan community.“
If you intimate that the taste and
Judgment of the 1930 metropolitan
community favor filth in books or on
tlie stage, which I deny, then the
rapport never existed, and so couid
not have been lost.
You still neglect to inform vour
readers that the former publisher of
the Casanova book 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-enforcing or¬
ganizatien, and its methods and stand¬
#rds are based on law and judicial
precedent. We could not conscien¬
tlously conform to the opposite ideas
zentlemen of the press, Ligh, low
n between.
JOHN S. SUMNER,
etary New York Society for the
Suppression of Vice.
dew. York, Sept. 29, 1930.
GI
Casanovas
Heinfahrt
30 . e ne enenenen ete
HEMSTREET
96 WARREN STREET
NEW YORK CITY
6076 1939
N Y WORLD
zunr r0 READ SCHNTTZLER RooK
The question whet
Casanova's
Homecoming by A
schnitzler 18
n obscene book
rthe law will
be decided
next
week, it wa
ter
John
rthe Pr.
th As8is
astings. 8
he bock for
se probably will bo the jury n
Tuesday.
—
Ca11 Bulletin
San Francisco Calif
Oet 18-30
reae
ing
*Casanoua’s Homec
Wins Cun.rt's
Homecc
rul
ie publis
mons
of Simon & Schuster and members
of the furm.
box 4/11