Casanovas Heimfahrt
30 en en en e ecte ente en
box 4/11
12
POINT II.
As far back as 1922 a complaint
against Casanova’s Homecoming'' was
dismissed by Magistrate Simpson, who
held that the book was a distinct contri¬
bution to the literature of the present
day'.
Nearly a decade ago the same complainant en¬
deavored to suppress the same book. At that time
Columbia University and the educators of the land
had not yet fully adopted the book as part of our
public educational system, but even then the court
held that the book was not obscene. (See opinion
of Magistrate Simpson in People v. Seitzer, N. V.
L. J., September 30, 1922, copy of opinion being
appended hereto.)
Not content with this adjudication, the complain¬
ant took the matter to the Grand Jury and an in¬
dietment was found. A demurrer to the indict¬
ment was overruled in 1924, but the key to the
present case is to be found in that part of the
Court’s denial of the demurrer in which the Court
stated that Moral standards of thought are not
*
*
of statie
nature.' People v. Seltzer, 203
N. Y. Supp. 809, 814.
This prohietie remark proved to be true within
two years. In 1926 the prosecution of“Casanova’s
Homecoming'’ was dropped by the District Attor¬
ney of New York County.
Would the administration of justice have the
community believe that the District Attorney com¬
promises crimes? Was there a deal that if Seltzer,
thethen publisher, agreed not to publish the book,
his past crime would be overlooked?