DEMORALISING BOOKS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1388, 14 March 1912, Page 4

DEMORALISING BOOKS.

We hjivo already reprinted the (irticle in which the Westminster Ufizclle summarised and endorsed the representations of the deputation on demoralising literature which recently waited on the; Home Secretary, Mil. Reginald M'Kesxa, but we should not like to let the opportunity pass without suggesting that the evils complained of exist also in this country and need to be remedied. The speech in which Mil. J. St. Loe Strachey, editor of the X/irrtator, introduced the deputation was a model of lucidity and good sense. He was indeed charged afterwards with vagueness, because he did nut indicate precisely enough for some critics the class of books which should ha dealt with. Even Mr. Edmund Gosse, writing in The Time*, demanded, "Let the objectors come out of their cloud of innuendo and let us know plainly what they arc attacking." This, of course, sounds very well, but the objection is without substance. All decent people who keep their eyes open agree that a great deal of obscene and unwholesome literature is in circulation, but there might be great differences of opinion on the question of banning a specified book. What the State is asked to provide is not a list of forbidden books, but facilities for the Law Courts to punish cases of indecent publication as they arise. The Law Courts may not be very well adapted for wrestling with problems of literary criticism, but the question _ is principally one of the.administration of justice, the punishment of a certain kind of offence against society, and that, of course, is what the Law Courts are for. Me. Strachey suggested that if hona-fitlc witnesses could be brought to declare that, in their opinion, a particular book was a real work of literature, and that , the intention of the author was not to make money out of indecency, but 'to carry out his particular view of art, or to further some genuine opiniou, such evidence should be given due weight by the magistrate. He also said—and the point is one without ivhich there can be no sound thinking on this subjectNo one, of course, suggests a censorship, that is an attempt to have books submitted to a licenser before they appear. Let them appear, but if they arc found to be within the grasp of ths law, let those who produce them take the. consequences. Some of Mr. Strachey's proposals are not applicable to New Zealand conditions. Thus he and his associates wished to have the law under which action must be taken made more comprehensive, but we think the Indecent Publications Act of this country requires amendment not by addition, but. by subtraction. The need of the moment, however, here as apparently also in England, is just what the deputation pressed most strongly on tlis Home Secretary, that is to say, greater activity in administering the law. Mr. Strachey contended that the Home Office and the police were mistaken in supposing that they should never run the risk of prosecuting a book unless they could be sure of success: No one would, of course, wish innocent people to bo prosecuted, but we cannot admit that bad results, would flow if occasionally a publisher or public vendor of bad books escaped on a tcchnic.il plea. Tho evidence brought before ns is very strong to show that those who deal in obscene works stand v<ry greatly in fear of a prosecution. Provided the police are not acting foolishly or maliciously, evon an unsuccessful prosecution acts as a powerful deterrent. If this is true in England, it is true also in New Zealand, and we think tho Indecent Publications Act, faulty though it is, should be used to protect society, and especially the young, from some of the poisonous reading matter which is now thrust before them.