. >_-?-? , ._7_^- .???um??ii^ i, i i, i h .; | | m a | | Ml 7~ ? ~ _ * ?*??-' "* ** " ?? l ?/ ? A ?/ ?< y Y i ? 'y International Jury of Writers Votes to Acquit J?rgen Vice Society Is Condemned A Change in the Law Concerning Works of Art To Be Demanded I --j-^HE effort of the New York I Society for the Suppreasion of Vice to bar James Branch Cabell'a fantasy novel J?rgen from the American reading pnbltc, on the ground of obscenity, has stirred op quite the liveliest discussion of the -^r in literary circles. The final Ie?aJ Judgment in the case of J?rgen baa not yet been rendered, but the sale ?nd circulation of the book have been ?topped. Shortly after the action of the so? ciety became known an emergency committee, consisting of Edward Hale, Bierstadt, Sidney Howard and Barrett H. Clark, was formed for the purpose of protesting against the suppression of J?rgen. The report of this com? mittee, now published under tho title o? J?rgen and the Censor, sums up the main features of a controversy which suggests the famous trial of Gustave Flaubert for the publication of Madame Bovary in the widespread in- | terest it has aroused. Mr. Cabell's Own Views Mr. Cabeli's own views on tho sub- '. j?ct of literary censorship are vigor? ously expressed in the following pas- j nges from a letter to the secretary of the committee: "A* to censorship of our reading mat? ter I concede this may in theory be ad viaabie. In practice, though, I can imagine no persons or class of persona qualified to perform this censorship. I Pace the vie? society, there is cer taioly a difference between pornog raphy and fine literature, if but the I difference that everybody enjoys the ; first, when few caro one way or the other about the second, and certainly the two should be appraised by diverse and appropriate standards. A work of ert should, therefore, in theory, be ;udged entirely as a work of art, by a jury of practitioners of the art con? cerned. "Yet, since every self-respecting author at the bottom abominates his competitors, despises his inferiors arid is frankly irritated by the work of tl.ose who differ from him in ?esthetic canons, such an arrangement would, in pract.ee, o:ily fling open more con? spicuous fields wherein to flaunt the mutual spite and miscomprehension com m in to us creative writers. Besides, it is not difficult to forecast what sort of writer.- must, and would, be chosen for the judiciary, as representing the d.gr.:*.y of letters by the happiest com? bination of mediocrity and senility. No: in tho end an attempt to estab? lish a purely 'Literary' tribunal would result in setting over American art a death watch of genial clergymen and decre] ! college professors; and I de apondeiitlj question if their decisions would be 11 whit less imbecile than the present arbitraments of the society's hired spies Art and Morality "At all events you and I uro in the negligible minority. I need hardly re? mind you that the officers of the so? ciety have embattled back of them all the complacent muddleheadedness of the average pew-renting American, who from the first has rather fret? fully resented any talk about 'art.' Mr. Paul K. More, in or.e of the let ters relative to tho J?rgen imbroglio, baa nicely Bummed up this popular point of '.lew: 'I am not at all in aympathy with a group of writers who would take any protest against the society ?is u just ?''?cation of what they are pleased to cull art. The harm done by the society seems to bo very slight, whereas the harm dene by the ?elf-styled ar7ist may be very great.' "Mow that is really the popular and. therefore, '"he expedient moral atti? tude. The moral of a democracy is, after all, a matter of elementary arith- ' metic: or:e counts the ballot (some? times, it is said, quite honestly) -in order to distinguish between right and wron%fker;?"r the voice of the peo? ple is notoriously the voice of God. ?t it precisely this discerning voice which has proclaimed time and again that the sturdy American peerage of nature's noblemen does not want to be bothered with any nonsense about literature and art: for the reasons, first, that such fripperies play no part In honest poll tax payers' lives; and second, that in very much the manner of tHIa Mr. Moore, our reputable citizenry-? i obscurely and inarticulately, but none: tba less genuinely-- resents the impu dance of 'self-styled artists' who pre-; ?unie to know more than their bet- 't t*r? about 'what they are pleased to j call art.' " Functions of Vice Society Joha S. Sumner, secretary of tho I Society for the Suppression of Vice, , gives the following interpretation of j the functions of his organization: "This corporation was organized in 1813 to enforce the laws seeking to ?uppress traffic in obscene, lewd, lasci- : ^oua, indecent, filthy and disgusting books or publications, and for other purposes. This law does not make ex? action as to the publications of any : particular class. That Is, It does not | distinguish between the writings of John Doe, who has no reputation, or Richard Roe, who is a distinguished ?utbor; nor have the courts, in inter- | Prating this law, permitted tbe intent of the author, expressed or implied, to in? fluence them In their decisions. If the knguage of a book Is lewd, or if it is of suggeative lewdnesa, it is a violation ?a* tae law, regardless of the literary or artistic character of the published mat? ter. 8ome of the court decisions have ?aid that a writing of an obscene char ***W wae more dangerous when couched *? fine langnage than when set forth in ?ude form, end this is undoubtedly ?ne. "The society endeavors to perform its tottea without favor to any claaa. If it *?**?*? that the law, which it Is our **** te ?afore*, has bets violated, w? ara Juat asi prompt to proceed against an established publisher or a known author as against the street peddler who seeks to excite impure thoughts in the minds of boys by retailing question? able pictures on the public street. Any other course would lay us open to Just criticism." j??s Principle of Censorship The principle of literary censorship is sharply attacked by Mr. Clark in his formal report and by Mr. Bierstadt in a short essay entitled, "Morals, Not Art or Literature." "The executive committee came to the conclusion that to carry on an extended campaign, either on behalf of J?rgen or of any other book, or against any particular society, could not improve the situation," says Mr. Clark in his report in explanation of why the original plun of the committee to give wide publicity to the protest and the list of signers was not car? ried out. A Change In Law "So far as any definite conclusion can be reached as to the most effec? tive method of suppressing the sup? pressors, it is this: That the law, as written by Anthony Comstock and en? forced by his successors, must be rad? ically amended. That law not only has permitted gross injustice to writers, painters, sculptors and scientists? without mentioning publishers. It has, by reason of its skillfully worded terms, permitted the establishment of a mass of Judicial decisions and inter? pretations the application of which is contrary to tho first principles of H UGH WALPOLE calls this ban on J?rgen lu? dicrous without mentioning publishers; it has, liberty." The emergency committee is now en? gaged in drafting an amendment to the laws affecting these persons Mr. Clark montions?writers, painters, sculptors and scientists. The efforts of the com? mittee, he says, are directed toward the passage of a law which would permit a work of art, if its "morality" be questioned, to be judged by those qualified to pass judgment on it. The "work of art" would embrace every work that might be considered seri? ous effort. "It would bs patently absurd to ask any jury to decide whether a book or a picture was or was not an enduring masterpiece," says Mr. Clark. "But the ' distinction between the book that treats sex as a part of life and that which treats pex primarily for tho purpose of stimulating the sexual instinct is easily drawn." Mr. Clark's objection is not to the! existence of a law permitting censor? ship, but to the kind of censorship ? permitted under the existing law and , to the personnel of the juries which j may pass upon "works of art." Mr. Bierstadt's objection is much j like Mr. Clark's in principle, but t??ffers decidedly in expression. Ho presents his ideas in an essay on 'Morals, Not Art or Literature, a heading borrowed from a pamphlet circulated by the .So- j ciety for the Suppression of Vice. Definition of Terms "Personally I don't understand it at j all," he says, in reference to the cap- j tion. "It implies a relationship that does not exist; it makes a distinction between elements that cannot be com- | pared; it states dramatically a revela-1 tion that has nothing to reveal." Ho demands a definition of terms and then proceeds to define the terms of this heading as he understands them. He says: "Morals. . . . They are what we have made them, und well we know that at best they are only the poor approximation of what we would have them. . . . Morals, or to phrase it more normally, the mor? alist would well know that if J?rgen were true art it could no more be im? moral than life itself, and he would know likewise that if it were not true art ... it would die from sheer malnutrition and inertia." Mr. Bierstadt goes vn with his method of definition and gives a few of his opinions upon standards of art and the code, which may influence them for a short time. He raises the ques? tion as to the fitness of a professional moralist to judge works of art. "A moralist is no more capable of judging a work of art than is a pure food expert." Not content with this, Mr. Bierstadt goes further and says: "And, too, the question may be raised. Are the members of the Society for the Suppression of Vice moralists Cat all? No, surely they are not. They j are experts in immorality, that,1b all," ' Replies of tho Writers i An appeal to protest against tho snp | pression of J?rgen, addressed by the committee to a number of well known writers, elicited some interesting sx | pressions of opinion. A decided ma | Jority of these authors show marked ! sympathy with J?rgen and hostility ; to the Idea of book censorship, al ? though a few voicea are raised in de ! fense of the society, and some writers | refuse to commit themselves without ? having read the book. A typically strong outburst is that of Sinclair Lewis: "To stop the aale of such a hook, ? while permitting lewd plays to con? tinue on Broadway, is practically like ?ondemnin? Rodin's 'The Thinker* while [icrmlttuig cheap music and picture ?tores all over New York to exhibit JAMES BRANCH CABELL, author of J?rgen, which has \*J come under the ban of the Vice Society the internal affairs of a country in which he ia a visitor. "In England, I should be with such a protest and with as loud a voice as possible, but I think that if I did so in America ' I might be very justly told to mind my own business, and that no matter how wrong the people who said it might be in other ways, they would certainly have right on their side in that." St. John Ervine answered the mani? festo heartily and without reserve. "Yes, indeed, you may add my name to the list of protesters' against the banning of J?rgen. I consider myself to be a very ordinary sort of person, with a mind as sbockable as that of either of the Rockefellers, but I could not find anything in J?rgen that seemed ? to me likely to destroy or even disturb ? the morals of a strict and particular ! Baptist. . . . "There are two kinds of war: the war j waged by evil men on the body and the I war waged by more evil men on the mind. . . . Wherever one looks to-day : one sees attempts being mado to cop ; trol opinion and to suppress thought. Wo must fight with our backs to the ! wall in defense of freu minds." A Wurd for the Society Another view of the case is stated by Brander Matthews in a brief note: "No, I won't join you. The Society pHEODORE DREISER, ! who backs up his protest ?with a $100 contribution to\ the defense fund I and sell openly obscene photographs . . . as they do. Tho only thing they have bo far omitted is to ban 'The Thinker.' "In lighting for J?rgen you are serv? ing the highest cause. We have had so few books of sheer magic beauty in this country that the thought of assailing J?rgen Is infuriating." Mr. Mencken's Opinion H. L. Mencken is equally outspoken: "Tho raid on J?rgen is the crown? ing absurdity. Tho book is not only a sound and honest piece of work; it is also an unquestionable work of art, and perhaps the finest thing of this sort ever done in America. In any civilized country such a book would bo received with enthusiasm by every educated man; here it is exposed forthwith to the stupid at? tack of persons without either intelli? gence or taste." Theodorro Dreiser recommends an authors' defense fund. He says: "There should bo a cash defense fund, such as for the last five years I have advocated, which should be de? voted to the hiring of competent law? yers and the prosecution of these cat? tle in every city in which they op? erate? and they now operate every? where." Hugh Walpole is one of several for? eign authors who enter the lists in behalf of J?rgen. Mr. Walpole says: "I can only say, in tho first place, that I regard any censorship of art, organized and directed by men who are moved by political and moral feelings apart from ?sthetic ones, as an im? possible anachronism in any modern civilized country, and that in any case I cannot see that J?rgen can possibly be held to offend against morality for the simple reason that there is no in? cident, detail or description, from one end of the book to another, that is not i there entirely for reasons of truth ' and beauty," John Drinkwater, In replying to the appeal, says that he is heartily in sympathy with it, but refuses to take part in something which belongs to [CT. JOHN ERVINE admits .that he is conventional,, \ ; ' but that he did not find Jur-\ gen shocking I for the Suppression of Vice is probably making a fool of itself?as It has done on more than cne occasion. But I am old enough to feel very grateful to It for the cleansing of the newsstands of New York from what they were fifty years ago. I hold it to be a most use? ful organization; and I don't believe that there is really any danger hero in the United States in the twentieth cen? tury that any true work of art will be suppressed." -0 Love and a Feud An Old Theme Is Handled Attractively IN The Wall Between Little, Brown Company) Surah Ware 1 Baaaett writes simply and with a ? good deal of skill of New England ! character. The wall is the symbol for : a neighborhood enmity, a family feud j that has dragged itself on for so many generations that the survivor scarcely know how it started. But though the wall itself crumbles, the feud flourishes. The story itself is unpretentious ! enough. Indeed, the fresh ingenuous? ness of the love story which concludes | the enmity hardly seems native to 1 these bleak people, whose flinty hard ; ness is each generation sharpened ; afresh on the granite hills. But though Miss Bassett is intent on making her . story a romance, she does not for that i reason ecTten or bedeck the sharp [nativo outlines of her characters. h-I JOHN DRINKWATER \ ** registers against censor? ship, but hesitates to partici? pate in an American con? troversy A Key to a Gate Mary Heaton Vorse Opens Door to Land of Children BETWEEN the land of the Bollo booka of our grandfathers and that of the choice, but too limited, ! writings that, like Canton's Invisible Playmate, picture a child world of al? most ethereal beauty, there lies a king? dom In literature seldom trod by authors, A few novelists have essayed to wander over this region, only to get lost in their own tangles of sophisticated ver? biage or through their inability to chart out true paths. For the realm of the young child is so misty in our memories that we, laden with the pack of our years, seldom, very seldom, journey back to the gate and drop that ! pack at tho portal. Yet, if we would I interpret the doings, the sayings, the pure psychology of our children for whom the teens are still ahead, we must bo children ourselves. Mary Heaton Vorse is wholly, sym? pathetically, inside the gates, and she comes to us at the latch and gives us what we desire, what we need, the un? deniable interpretation of the land of young children, a republic so quaint in its efforts to imitate maturity, deli? cio u s ? y delightful in Its sheer spon? taneity of humor. Her The Prestons was a godsend, a book that made u; fathers and mothers forget our sol emnities and assume at least a fie tional place as partners with our boy; and girls. And now, in Growing Uf (Boni & Liveright), she has gone i jaunt further, with us in tow, into thi heart of the mystical kingdom that lie: about us in our own homes, yet s< vaguely outlined to our mental visioi that we don't seem to realize it. Thi book is a much needed one. It shouh be in every honestly American home for it Is a sort of vade mecum fo parents. And now for a glance into it The family of the Marceys, Tom an Alice for parents, and Robert, Sar and Jamie for children, is typical. On can go down any respectable street i the United States and point out coun terparts. The three children are of'th group universal, but each is a distinc little unit with passionately conceive and defended whims and aspiration; Robert, "elusive and vanishing," is th man in microcosm. Sara, "howlin Sara," is the "gregarious," doll lovin and fostering little girl. And Jamb delightful youngster, "performs hi solemn games" of solitaire with ir visiblo guests. These children hav their unseen and adjacent countr wherein dwells "Uncle Zotsby" and h dog, the mystical canine, whose talii manic name," "Pa Skelegg" is divulge in a whisper at the close of the boo after many days of vigorous questioi ing by Sara. But the essence of Grov 'nff Cp, its comfortable guide fitr u is to be found, not in the refreshing! humorous exploits and visionings i the children, but in the study of t? three by their splendid mother, Alie She learns, through the days and tl weeks and the months, that the key their hearts is sympathy, that what : often may appear to be insubordinate and wanton freakishness is mere the natural, rational, to be expecti when understood, expressions of a li tie mind that sees and interprets tiny world in a small way. Alice contrives to be at one wi Robert, Sara and Jamie. She gets in a holy place that practical father Tc can never enter. Her story, so pure a record of what has happened and w happen again and again, in the cas of mothers who can be as childr with their little ones, is a marvel fidelity to the isms and the actualiti of childhood. Don't lay Growing i aside with a smile of parental buj riority. Read it, laugh with it, forj your years, and take your little Si or Jamie on your lap or your knee w a sense of new and loving acqua tance. All-Wool' Morriso: ATWO-FISTLD mayor of a We ern city, who fights the gra ers with one hand and the B shevists with the other?that is I hero of All-Wool Morrison, by H man Day (Harper & Bros.). Morrii is of the idealized type of yoi American business men who can be bullied and who cannot be seduc He is an impregnable fortress of , tue against every temptation?e when the father of the girl he lo proves to be the leader of the i which is trying to ?teal the wa i power of the state he does not swe fron the path of rectitud?. BemstorfPs Own Story Former German Ambassador Tells How He Worked for Peace By William L, McPherson IN AN article in The Tribune Sun? day Magazine section for July 10 I showed how completely Count von Bernstorff's book, "My Three Years In America" (Charles Scribner's Sons), demolishes a legend created by some of President Wilson's admirers and contributed to by the President himself in the celebrated McCumber colloquy. That legend was to the effect that in his diplomatic dealings with Germany prior to January 31, 1917, Mr. Wilson was deliberately preparing the country?at least? morally?for war. Some other aspects of this important and absorbingly interesting book de? serve .to be noted. It may be said in passing that the title of the transla? tion is a misnomer. Bernstorff was the Kaiser's ambassador here for eight years, instead of three. The title of the German edition is more appropriate, "Germany and America: Reminiscences of the Five Years' War." Bernstorff is the most successful of the German apologists who have so far broken into literature. It must be admitted that he makes out a case for himself from his own diplomatic dis? patches. He was wiser than his gov? ernment?wiser than either Bcthmann Hollweg or Ludendorff. He says that ho was convinced after the Battle of the Marne that Germany couldn't im? pose a peace of conquest on Europe. Ha believed that her only hope lay in a peace of conciliation?based, in a general way, on the status quo ante. He wanted to encourage mediation by the United States and to keep the United States out of the war at any cost. That was too rational a program for most Germans. Bernstorff played the diplomatic game here with great ability. There seems to be no ques? tion that he would have kept America neutral had his policy not been con? stantly thwarted by gross blunders in Berlin. He read the situation better than Ludendorff did. The latter grossly deceived himself in the question of the efficacy of the U-boat warfare, which Bernstorff was clear-sighted enough to wish to discard. The former ambassa? dor recounts this interview with Luden? dorff at grand headquarters in 1917: "Ludendorff?In America you -wanted to make peace. You evidently thought we were at the end of our tether. "Bernstorff?No, I did not think that; but I wanted to make peace before we came to the end of our tether. "Ludendorff?We, however, didn't want to." Bernstorff's book re?mphasizes the fact that Germany's war strategy was never clarified or stable. His diplo? matic instructions varied according to the exigencies of the struggle in Ber? lin between the civilian and military factions. Bethmann-Hollweg had to fight Tirpitz and Falkenhayn, and the empire's foreign policy was in the bal? ance during those squabbles. When Ludendorff came into power Bethmann Hollweg's sun had set, and the Foreign Office became only an attachment to General Staff headquarters. Bernstorff felt that he could look for support to von J?gow. But all the others in Berlin were more absorbed in the rivalries of domestic politics than in winning the war by clear think? ing and adroit action. The boasted Prussian Constitution was supposed to insure absolute unity of control?the prime requisite in war. But it insured only disunity, because the Kaiser was incompetent to command and the vari? ous political and military factions fought and intrigued to exercise com? mand in his stead. Germany lost the war because of Ludendorff's fatal mi9judgment in Jan? uary, 1917. On this point Bernstorff makes the shrewd observation: "It seems to have been our destiny that all our most important decisions of the war were the outcome of military and not of political considerations. On the Entente side the converse was always true, and that is why, though it Buf? fered many military reverses, the En? tente won the war." Bernstorff's account of his relation to German sabotage and offensive Ger? man propaganda in this country must be taken with more than a grain of suspicion. But his personal desire to keep Germany and America at peace cannot be doubted. His book shows that ho was a keen student of Ameri? can politics and a well informed one He has Bcored a news beat on every correspondent in Washington by telling the world that if President Wilson had been defeated for reelection in Novem? ber, 1916, he would immediately have made Charles E. Hughes Secretary ol State and then resigned, turning ovei the Presidency to the Republicans. What Englishmen Are Reading An English Wife in Berlin, by Princess Blucher, Much Commented On By Frank Getty LONDON, Sept. 15. NO BOOK has brought home so clearly to English men and women the "other side of the war" as that of Evelyn, Princess Bl?cher, an English girl mar? ried to a German prince, who spent the period of hostilities in Berlin. In An English Wife in Berlin she has given this country a sharp pen pic? ture of the feelings that actuated the enemy leader's and common people dur? ing the war. She knew the Kaiser, Roger Casement and other figures about whom,the world has yet to barn the full truth. She ate kangaroo thankfully during the food shortage in the German capital, and, with a re? markably clear judgment fostered by her divided sympathies, weighed enemy and Allied propaganda at its proper valuation. The book is a diary. Early in Au? gust, 1914, Princesa Bl?cher whote: "Exactly what was the real cause of the war no one seem:; to under? stand. It. id said in England that Germany provoked the war, but here they emphatically deny it. Cine thing grows clearer to me every day: neither people here nor there de? sired the war, but here they are carried off their legs at seeing so many enemies on every side." From the princess we learn that German propaganda for internal con? sumption was as unscrupulous ir: its misrepresentations for the sake of fostering "patriotism" as we now know that of any other country to have been. Regiments of convicts, the Ger? man people were told, formed the mainstay of the British army; sap? pers' knives, made with a special scoop to twist out the eyes of German pris? oners, had been provided; Belgian women and children had been guilty of terrible atrocities. Kaiser a "Pathetic Figure" Then there is the ex-Kaiser, * pathetic figure even in those days, ac cording to the princess, who remainec his loyal friend. At a court ball ir Berlin the former Emperor asked hei to christen his new cruiser Bl?cher. "I expect you'll get into trouble wit! your English relations if you launc! my battleships, now, won't you?" In 1915 Princess Bl?cher wrote: "H' is too terribly misjudged and misunder stood." She wishes England could know ho^ the Emperor had forbidden air raid over London, had opposed von TirpitV submarine warfare and had tried t stop, and bitterly regretted, the execu tion of Edith Cavel!. The militar party, she writes, overrode all his wea objections. "He complained most bitterly that he was deceived and lied to from the outset of his reign, and especially throughout the war; . . . that ha was treated as a nonenity by the General Staff; that they made ? point of contradicting every order oi command . he gave; that he was turned out of the room whenever th? t?l?phona rang at headquarters, sc aa not ta hear the commands ?n