11. Reigen
box 19/1
10
discussing such topies as masturbation and venereal
diseases. U. S. v. Mary Ware Dennett, 39 Fed.
(2d) 564.
In the light of these cases “ Reigen“’ clearly does
not come within the meaning and intent of Section
1141 of the Penal Law of this State.
The Universal Acceptance of Reigen'
Even in Play Form Is Conclusive of Its
Legality as a Book.
We have seen that civilized Europe has sanc¬
tioned Dr. Schnitzler’s work not only as a book but
as a play. We have also seen that this acceptance
was not one of mere acquiescence; that the survival
of“Reigen'’ was not attributable to indifference or
lack of official vigilance, Its obscenity was attacked
and vigorously vindicated. The voluminous court
record, Der Kampf Um Den Reigen, submitted here¬
with, is eloquent testimonial to the thoroughness
of the prosecution, and the careful consideration
which the German Court gave to the work as a
play.
All of this assumes special significance when we
remember that the criminal statutes of the State of
New York apparently make a distinction between
books and plays. Section 1140-a of the Penal Lam
clearly indicates a more stringent obscenity test
for the stage than for printed matter This dis¬
tinction has apparently prevailed in Europe also.
Long aster Reigen' was being distributed there
reith immunity in book form, an attempt wcas made
to ban its dramatic presentation.
Section 1140-a and Section 1141 were not enacted
simultaneously. The subsequent passage of the so¬
called Wales Law (Section 1140-a of the Penal
Law) in the light of Section 1141 leads to the
inescapable inference that the Legislature intended