tHE 
 
 6424- 
 P&4 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 $B bMS 7D7 
 

 Our Despotic Postal 
 Censorship 
 
 By LOUIS F. POST 
 
 Editor of The Public 
 
 Keprinted from The Public of March 10, 1906 
 
 POSTAL OEIJSOESHIP OP BANKING 
 
 The Lewis case of St. Louis (p. 
 778) is a striking instance of the 
 dangerous meddlesomeness of the 
 postal department in private busi- 
 ness. Lewis had undertaken to 
 establish a banking business with 
 certain novel features. Whether 
 those features would be useful or 
 Ti'ot we make no pretense of say- 
 ^n|g We are quite convinced, 
 '10 ever, that post office "inspec- 
 — — ^ — — — > 
 
 *s pamphlet originally appeared as an 
 
 e rial in The Public (Chicago) of March 
 
 '0, 06. It was preceded by two editorials 
 
 le same subject. One of these, "Our 
 
 ancing Postal Censorship," appeared In 
 
 Public of August 12, 1905, and is in 
 
 nhlet form. The other, "The Growing 
 
 ^r of Our Postal Censorship,'* appeared 
 
 ^ le Public of October 7, 1905. Page ref- 
 
 oes in the text are to the pages of vol. 
 
 ^'"■■'""""""240978 
 
tors" (the official name for mail 
 bag detectives) are not qualified 
 judges; and we doubt the compe- 
 tency of a Postmaster General 
 who collected campaign contri- 
 butions from financial corpora- 
 tions to be used for his chief's 
 election. Yet this Postmaster 
 General, upon the ex parte report 
 of such detectives, did by arbi- 
 trary order close the mails to 
 Lewis's banking enterprise. Of 
 course that meant death to the 
 enterprise, for mail facilities are 
 vital to every modern business. 
 The pretense was that the busi- 
 ness was fraudulent. But this 
 pretense has been killed by the 
 report of the receiver of the as- 
 sassinated enterprise, who says of 
 it that every loan and investment 
 has been liquidated 100 cents on 
 the dollar with interest in full; 
 that the depositors are being paid 
 in full; and that he has already 
 declared dividends to the stot;k- 
 holders of 85 per cent. If that ^^ as 
 a fraudulent institution, maki ^g 
 loans on wildcat securities, what 
 shall be said of the honest ones 
 whose securities do not pan out in 
 full, whose depositors get but a 
 fraction of their money back, and 
 whose stockholders are lucky if 
 thev don't have to submit to an 
 
assessment? Besides . this evi- 
 dence of the legitimacy of Mr. 
 Lewis's assassinated business, 
 we have the signed statement of 
 Alexander Del Mar, the distin- 
 guished publicist who is editor of 
 the American Banker, that he is 
 satisfied after minute examina- 
 tion that the banking business in 
 question — 
 
 however original its metliod of promo- 
 tion, or however novel its features and 
 plan of working, was an honestly de- 
 signed, and an honestly conducted in- 
 stitution and one which, had it not 
 been disturbed, would have proved 
 profitable to its stockholders and de- 
 positors and even beneficial to the 
 country at large, by increasing the 
 revenues of the post ofiice department, 
 providing a safe and expenseless money 
 order system and affording facilities to 
 the multitude for obtaining small loans 
 of money upon pledges. I am ^ con- 
 strained to add that the dates and 
 other details of the attacks made upon 
 it by the several parties indicated point 
 to. a concerted effort, originating in 
 trade rivalry and embittered by malice. 
 
 The fact that such a business 
 could be ruined by the flat of a 
 cabinet officer is reason enough 
 ' for overhauling the statutes un- 
 der which an administrative de- 
 partment of the central govern- 
 ment has drawn to itself such 
 monstrous power. 
 
 3 
 
POSTAL OENSOKSHIP OP PERIODI- 
 OALS. 
 
 We recur with much reluctance 
 to the despotic censorship which 
 is growing up in the Post Office 
 Department (p. 420), under cover 
 of well-meant Congressional leg- 
 islation for the suppression of vice 
 and fraud. The subject cannot be 
 neglected while that crude and 
 careless legislation remains upon 
 •the statute books unamended. 
 For this censorship, already de- 
 structive of some of the legiti- 
 mate postal rights of some per- 
 sons, is becoming more and more 
 expansive in scope and despot- 
 ic in execution. 
 
 The particular instance regard- 
 ing which we are about to submit 
 the facts, relates, as did a previ- 
 ous one (p. 290), to thCxChicago pe- 
 riodical known as "Lucifer," 
 which the Post Office Department 
 is endeavoring to suppress on the 
 manifestly false pretense that it 
 is an obscene publication. On the 
 same pretense and by the same in- 
 fluence, the editor, Mr. Moses Har- 
 man, has been imprisoned (p. 806) 
 through the machinery of the Fed- 
 eral courts. / 
 
 Lucifer is devoted in good faith 
 to the propagation of its editor's 
 opinions regarding sex relation- 
 
ships. Although these opinions 
 are contrary to ours, we conceive 
 that they may nevertheless be en- 
 titled to respectful consideration, 
 and we therefore demand for 
 them the same freedom of expres- 
 sion that we enjoy for our own. 
 They are, indeed, hostile to the 
 perpetuation of certain ecclesias- 
 tical and social conventionalities, 
 but only a false witness or si moral 
 pervert would deliberately pro- 
 nounce them obscene. The prod- 
 uct of a philosophical and not a 
 salacious mind, they presefit for 
 rational thought questions of hu- 
 man welfare which demand un.cen- 
 sored expression. 
 
 But the vital question present- 
 ed by the particular circumstan- 
 ces to be here considered, is not 
 whether ^^Lucifer^s'' opinions and 
 ours, or its opinions and anybody 
 else's, are at variance. It is not 
 whether one kind of opinion or 
 another shall be suppressed. It is 
 not whether obscenity shall be ex- 
 cluded from the mails, nor even 
 whether ^'Lucifer'' is actyally 
 guilty of obscene utterances. The 
 vital question to the American 
 people in this and all similar 
 cases, is whether any person shall, 
 upon any pretense whatever, be 
 deprived of his liberty or his prop- 
 erty, so far as either depends upon 
 the use of the mails, without a fair 
 
trial and in accordance with pub- 
 lic law and unconcealed prece- 
 dents. It is the old question of 
 '^administrative process" in a new 
 form. 
 
 That the right to use the mails 
 depends, under the act of Con- 
 gress as it now exists, upon the 
 mere whim of administrative of- 
 ficers we have already proved. 
 We purpose now to confirm that 
 proof with additional evidence. 
 At the same time we shall demon- 
 strate specifically the following 
 assertions: 
 
 1. Any periodical, though it con- 
 tains nothing obscene, is subject to 
 exclusion peremptorily from the mails 
 as a purveyor of obscenity, upon the 
 mere order of administrative officials 
 of the Post Office Department. 
 
 2. Exclusion orders are made os- 
 tensibly in accordance with prece- 
 dents of the Department created by 
 rulings in particular cases upon what 
 constitutes obscenity; but these pre- 
 cedents are secret, and by refusing to 
 define their limitations upon request 
 the Department prevents publishers 
 from guarding" against the i>enalties 
 of orders of exclusion. 
 
 3. Publishers whose periodicals are 
 so excluded are accorded no protection 
 by the courts against unjust exclusions, 
 not even though the exclusion be made 
 in manifest bad faith. As the law 
 stands, the Postmaster General's dic- 
 tum, right or wrong, and whether with 
 
good intent or evil intent, is abso- 
 lute. 
 
 4. In practice the Post Office De- 
 partment excludes periodicals from 
 the mails for publishing articles de- 
 nounced as obscene, which in fact are 
 not obscene. 
 
 5. The law as it now stands affords 
 officials of the Post Office Department 
 a degree of opportunity for corrupt 
 discrimination in excluding periodi- 
 cals, which it is unsafe to repose in 
 any official and which ought to be 
 carefully guarded against by Con- 
 gress. 
 
 I 
 
 About the middle of August 
 last, we were advised that the is- 
 sue of "Lucifer" of August 3 had 
 been excluded from the mails by 
 postal order. According to our 
 information, the matter specified 
 as objectionable was in a para- 
 graph of each of two indicated ar- 
 ticles. 
 
 The first of these paragraphs 
 was clearly not obnoxious to the 
 law, unless President Roosevelt's 
 observations on race suicide were 
 obnoxious to it; the second was no 
 more so, unless a book it named 
 by title is on the postal index ex- 
 purgatorius. We should have 
 no hesitation in republishing 
 both paragraphs for the purpose 
 of showing their innocence, were 
 it not for the fact that the Post 
 
Office Department has them now 
 on its index expurgatorius. This 
 fact alone, were we to republish 
 them here, would subject this is- 
 sue of The Public to the risk of ex- 
 clusion from the mails by order of 
 the Post Office Department, and 
 without possibility of protection 
 from the courts. 
 
 Upon examining the articles in 
 question we wrote, August 12, 
 1905, to the Chicago postmaster 
 as follows: 
 
 Mr. Moses Harman. the publisher of 
 "Lucifer the Light Bearer." which is 
 entered at the Chicgo post office, 
 writes us to the effect that his issue 
 of August 3d was submitted to your 
 office for mailing; that your office ad- 
 vised that the first two articles of 
 the issue were unmailable under sec- 
 tion 497 of the Postal Laws and Regu- 
 lations; and that the question is now 
 before the Department at Washington 
 awaiting its decision, the issue of Lu- 
 cifer for August 3d being meanwhile 
 practically denied circulation through 
 the mails. 
 
 The first article he indicates is 
 Signed . . . and the second purports 
 to be an extract from an article in 
 the . . . by . . .* I have read the 
 articles with a good deal of carfe, 
 and fail to find in them anything ihat 
 can possibly, either in thought or 
 phrase, fall within what I should sup- 
 
 * Name omitted for reasons stated in 
 the next note. 
 
pose would be considered a fair in- 
 terpretation of the section of the 
 Postal Laws and Regulations referred 
 to above. 
 
 If the articles were in harmony 
 with my own views, I should never 
 think of refusing them admission to 
 my columns, although I am extremely 
 careful, entirely apart from any con- 
 sideration of the postal laws and regu- 
 lations, to avoid giving offense with 
 reference to the general subject with 
 which these articles are allied. I can 
 £eeno reason whatever for refusing them 
 admission to any publication on any 
 other ground than that, as in my case, 
 Ihey are out of harmony with its edito- 
 rial policy. I am therefore con- 
 strained to believe that there must be 
 some mistake or misunderstanding. It 
 does not seem to me possible that your 
 office would take the action which the 
 publisher of Lucifer tells me has been 
 taken respecting these articles. 
 
 May I therefore respectfully ask you 
 to inform me of the facts so far as 
 your office is concerned? 
 
 The reply of the Chicago post- 
 master, promptly made and bear- 
 ing the date of August 14, was as 
 follows: 
 
 Replying to yours of August 12, 
 concerning the publication "Lucifer," 
 the issue of August 3 contains obscene 
 literature, judged by the precedent set 
 by the Department at Washington in 
 its rulings on this publication. The 
 alleged objectionable matter is found 
 
m the . . . paragraph,* beginning . . . 
 in the . . . column of page . . . also 
 in the . . . paragraph from the bottom 
 of the same column, beginning . . . 
 In this paragraph a pamphlet is ad- 
 vertised which contains obscene mat- 
 ter. 
 
 If the matter is not obscene in the 
 meaning of the law. the ruling of the 
 Department at Washington will ren- 
 der the matter mailable, and no dam- 
 age will result to the publication. 
 
 There has been no misunderstanding 
 on the part of this office in its action 
 on this issue of the publication. This 
 action is entirely within the Depart- 
 mental instructions, and so far in the 
 history of this publication the action 
 of this oflace has been upheld by the 
 Department. 
 
 The paragraphs specified in the 
 postmaster's letter, the specific 
 reference to which we omit for 
 reasons explained in the footnote, 
 were the same paragraphs as those 
 to which our attention had been 
 originally called. The second one 
 was hel,d to be objectionable only 
 
 • We omit the specific references made In 
 the Postmaster's letter, because their 
 inclusion here migh't subject this Is- 
 sue of The Public to suppression by 
 order of the postal censor. The same 
 act of Congress by authority of which 
 *'Lucifer" was censored for publish- 
 ing those articles, provides also that "no- 
 tice of any kind giving Information, direct- 
 ly or indirectly, where or how, or of whom 
 or by what means an "obscene . . . pub- 
 lication of an indecent character" "may be 
 obtained," is itself "non-mailable matter." 
 
 10 
 
because it named a book which ia 
 on the postal index expurga- 
 torius. 
 
 This letter from the Chicago 
 postmaster throws some light on 
 the indifference of the postal au- 
 thorities to personal rights. "If 
 the matter is not obscene," calmly 
 writes the Chicago postmaster 
 (doubtless by the hand of a bu- 
 reaucratic subordinate), "the rul- 
 ing of the Department at Wash- 
 ington will render the matter 
 mailable, and no damage will re- 
 sult to the publication/^ No 
 damage will result to the publica- 
 tion! A whole issue of a publica- 
 tion may be stopped while a bureau 
 at Washington leisurely consid- 
 ers whether it contains obscenity, 
 and if the bureau's decision is fa- 
 vorable, "no damage will result to 
 the publication" ! This discloses a 
 queer notion of the nature of 
 newspaper property. However, 
 as to our inquiry the Chicago post- 
 master's letter was as specific as 
 
 Since the censors have already decided 
 that the articles in question are obscene 
 and indecent, they might decide that the 
 naming of them by title and page in con- 
 nection with the name of the publication 
 in which they appeared, is a notice makinjr 
 the paper publishing it also' guilty under 
 the statute and therefore subject to sup- 
 pression. Were they to so decide, they 
 could suppress this issue of The Public, 
 and we should be without protection or re- 
 dress or any power to get a judicial triaL 
 
 11 
 
could be required; and we await 
 ed the final action of the Depart- 
 ment upon the postmaster's order 
 of exclusion. 
 
 Meanwhile the Chicago post- 
 master had found it necessary, in 
 accordance with the precedents of 
 the Department, to exclude also 
 the issue of "Lucifer" of Au- 
 gust 17th. 
 
 In this instance the accusation, 
 as reported to us, was plainly im- 
 aginary. It rested in part upon 
 the republication of an editorial 
 from tlic ^^'o]llal^s Journal, of 
 Boston, the ii;Mi<mal woman suf- 
 frage organ, iuid oiio of the 
 purest and nio.s! icjMiijiblc jioiiod 
 icals in the United States, and in 
 part upon an extract from an of- 
 ficial report of the Agricultural 
 Department of the United States 
 government. 
 
 We thereupon wrote this letter, 
 dated August 20th, to the Chicago 
 postmaster: 
 
 Thank you for your prompt, cour- 
 teous and full reply of August 14th to 
 mine of August 12th, in which I had 
 inquired relative to denial of mail serv- 
 ice to the edition of the paper Lucifer 
 01 August 3d. 
 
 In one respect you misunderstood 
 me. It was not my intention to imply 
 that your office is acting recklessly 
 with reference to the policy of the De- 
 
 12 
 
partment, or contrary to Departmental 
 instructions. I was only seeking in- 
 formation as to the policy, rulings and 
 instruQtions of the Department as ap- 
 plied by you in a particular case. 
 
 And now I must trouble you again 
 in the same way. I am informed that 
 the issue of Lucifer, of August 17th, 
 also has been refused mail service, and 
 that the refusal is based on the 
 charge that an article reproduced in 
 it from the Woman's Journal, of Bos- 
 ton, and written by one of the editors 
 of that paper, Alice Stone Blackwell,. 
 is unmailable under section 497 of 
 Postal Laws and Regulations. As the 
 Woman's Journal is the principal jour- 
 nalistic representative of the woman 
 suffrage movement in the United 
 States, and is everywhere respected as 
 a pure and able publication, and Miss 
 Blackwell is a woman of national repu- 
 tation with a stainless character, this 
 action of your office is of peculiar im- 
 portance and of exceptional public 
 concern. 
 
 The matter also concerns me person- 
 ally, for in entire good faith, I also 
 have reproduced an extract from Miss 
 Blackwell's article. Whether the part 
 I have reproduced includes any of the 
 article to which you are said to ob- 
 ject, I cannot positively know untir I 
 learn definitely from you the particu- 
 lar part or parts of that article (the 
 whole and every part of which seem 
 to me a thoroughly clean and just 
 criticism of the present postal admin- 
 istration) to which postal objection is 
 made and for the republication of 
 
 13 
 
which the mail service is denied to 
 Lucifer of August 17,— if such service 
 has been denied on account of any- 
 thing contained in Miss Blackwell's ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 Both for my own guidance, there- 
 fore, and also for legitimate public use, 
 will you kindly indicate to me spe- 
 cifically, in such way as you think 
 proper, what are the grounds for the 
 exclusion from the mails of the edi- 
 tion of Lucifer of August 17th. 
 
 The postmaster's reply, bearing 
 date of August 29th, was as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Replying 4:o yours of August 26, 
 three pounds of the publication "Luci- 
 fer," of the issue of August 17, were 
 offered for mailing at this office, and 
 the copies are held, awaiting decision 
 by the Department at Washington as 
 to whether or not they are mailable 
 under Sec. 497, P. L. & R. 
 
 The matter to which the attention 
 of the Department has been especially 
 drawn by this oflSce is the article at 
 the head of the . . . column of page 
 . . ., and the . . . lines at the . . . 
 of the . . . column of page . . .* 
 
 Judging by precedent, this matter is 
 In violation of Sec. 497, and under 
 postal instructions it is the duty of 
 this office to submit the matter to the 
 Department at Washingon for a ruling 
 
 Owing to the indefiniteness of 
 this letter from the Postmaster, 
 
 • Indicating the articles containing quota- 
 tion from U. S. Agricultural Report and 
 two lines of the Woman's Journal article. 
 
 14 
 
we made the following further in- 
 quiry, in a letter to him bearing 
 date of August 30th: 
 
 Thank you for your reply of the 29tii 
 to mine of 26th, in re issue of Lu- 
 cifer of August 17th. 
 
 You say that "the attention of th« 
 Department has been especially 
 drawn" by your office to "the article 
 at the ... of the . . . column of page 
 . . ., and the . . . lines at the . . . 
 of the . . . column of page ..." As 
 you qualify your statement by the 
 word "especially," may I further ask 
 whether you acted also on any 
 other part of the article on page . . ., 
 or on any other article in the issue 
 in question? 
 
 And if it would be proper for you 
 to give it, I should like the follow- 
 ing additional information regarding 
 the objectionability of the article at 
 the head of the . . . column of page 
 
 1. Does the objection apply to the 
 
 use of the title of Dr. 's book in 
 
 the . . . line of the text of that article? 
 
 2. Does it apply to the language of 
 the comparison between mankind and 
 horse kind in lines ....... and . . . 
 
 of the text of the article? 
 
 3. Does it apply to the quotation in 
 line . . . of the text of the article, 
 purporting to be from page ... of a 
 "Special Report on Diseases of the 
 Korse" prepared under the direction 
 of Dr. D. E. Salmon, and issued by 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry in the 
 United States Department of Agricul- 
 ture? 
 
 15 
 
4. Does it apply to the quotation in 
 lines . . . and ... of the text of the 
 article in question, purporting to be 
 fiom the text of the above described 
 report of the Agricultural department? 
 
 5. Does it apply to the use of the 
 title of Dr. — — 's book in the . . . 
 line of the text of the article in ques- 
 tion? 
 
 Noting what you say to the effect 
 that the articles in question are in vio- 
 lation of section 497 according to prece- 
 dent, and that it is your duty under 
 postal instructions to submit them to 
 the Department for a ruling, I wish 
 to assure you of my absolute confidence 
 in your good faith and that of your 
 office. Permit me also to apologize 
 for presuming to interrogate you so 
 minutely as I do in this letter. Be- 
 lieve me, I am far from desiring to 
 annoy you, or your office, or the De- 
 partment. But it seems to me of 
 the utmost importance that editors 
 and the reading public should know 
 the extent of the limitations that the 
 rulings of the Department are impos- 
 ing upon editorial discussion, quota- 
 tion, etc., and it is only to this end 
 that I trouble you.* 
 
 Following was the Chicago 
 postmaster^s reply of September 
 1st to the foregoing letter: 
 
 Replying to yours of August 30, rela- 
 tive to the publication **Lucifer," I 
 cannot answer your specific questions 
 with a direct "yes" or "no." I see 
 
 ♦ Specific references omitted for reasons 
 stated in previous foot note. 
 
 16 
 
no necessity for this office to explain 
 its objection to this printed matter in 
 tho manner you have prescribed. The 
 article in question may be "obscene," 
 within the meaning of the law. That 
 in for the Department at Washington 
 to decide. To quote your statement, it may 
 be "of the utmost importance that ed- 
 itors and the reading public should 
 know the extent of the limitations 
 .that the rulings of the Department are 
 imposing upon editorial discussion, 
 quotations, etc," but it is not within 
 the province of this office to interpret 
 the law. That is the prerogative of 
 the Department at Washington. This 
 office can only refer you to the statutes 
 and to the rulings of the Department 
 Id specific cases. 
 
 In answer to the first question of 
 yours of August 30, all references to 
 the book ". . ."* were marked in the 
 copy sent to the Department by this 
 office. These references are not neces- 
 sarily objectionable. The quotation 
 from the book may be. 
 
 Having been refused in the pre- 
 ceding letter the information we 
 sought, and referred therein "to 
 the rulings of the Department in 
 specific cases," we addressed the 
 Postmaster General the follow- 
 ing letter dated September 6th : 
 
 Will you kindly examine the in- 
 
 * Name of book omitfed for reasons here- 
 tofore given. The book mentioned in the 
 Postmaster's letter is not the U. S. Agri- 
 cultural Report, but Dr. 's book en- 
 
 UUed ". . . ." 
 
 17 
 
closed correspondence between my- 
 self and the Postmaster at Chicago 
 and, if in your judgment proper to do 
 so, favor me with the information 
 which the Chicago Postmaster does 
 not regard it proper for his office to 
 furnish? 
 
 To facilitate your examination of 
 the inclosures, I describe them as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 1. My letter of August 26 asking (for 
 legitimate public use) for a specifica- 
 tion of the grounds for the Chicago 
 Postmaster's exclusion from the mails 
 of the edition of the Chicago periodical 
 "Lucifer," of August 17, 1905. 
 
 2. The Postmaster's response of Aug- 
 ust 29, indicating the matter to which 
 the attention of your Department was 
 "especially drawn" by the Chicago post 
 office as furnishing grounds for the 
 exclusion. 
 
 3. My reply of August 30th, asking 
 specific questions, with a view to 
 ascertaining exactly, and all, the mat- 
 ter objected to in the edition of "Lu- 
 cifer" in question, the Postmaster hav- 
 ing qualified his response to my for- 
 mer letter with the word "especially," 
 as you will observe by reference to the 
 copy of his response inclosed. 
 
 4. The Postmaster's reply of Septem- 
 ber 1, stating that he sees no necessity 
 for explaining his objection to the 
 printed matter in question in the man- 
 ner I have requested, and referring to 
 your Department. 
 
 My specific requests of your Depart- 
 ment are: 
 
 18 
 
First, Whether the Chicago Postmas- 
 ter, in denying mail service to the is- 
 sue of Lucifer of August 17, noted as 
 objectionable any other part or parts 
 of that issue than the parts described 
 by him in his letters to me of August 
 2\i and September 1. If so, what part 
 or parts? 
 
 Second. Whether the objections he 
 noted applied to the issue of Lucifer 
 in question, as indicated by any or all 
 of those questions in my letter to him 
 of August 30th, which are therein dis- 
 tinguished by the numerals 2, 3 and 4. 
 
 As I stated in my letter of August 
 30 to the Chicago Postmaster, it is 
 no part of my purpose to annoy your 
 Department, or any branch of it, with 
 impertinent inquiries. I may add that 
 I have no intention of soliciting any 
 information that the general public 
 have no right to know. But I shall 
 be greatly obliged if your Department 
 will give me the information solicitei 
 above, so far as it may be within the 
 bounds of propriety, and, to save fur- 
 ther inquiry from me, will be sufficiently 
 specific with reference to any of my 
 requests that you may think improper, 
 as to assure me that the failure to re 
 ply is because they are improper and 
 not because they are accidentally over- 
 looked. 
 
 The reply to the foregoing let- 
 ter was dated September 13, and 
 came from the First Assistant 
 Postmaster General, who wrote: 
 
 In reply to your letter of the 6th 
 instant to the Postmaster General, you 
 
 19 
 
are informed that this Department can- 
 rot undertake to specify In detail the 
 objectionable matter appearing in the 
 issue of the periodical, "Lucifer," of 
 August 17, 1905, which caused the ex- 
 clusion of that issue from the mails. 
 
 This reply was so obviously cin 
 attempt to*^ evade responsibility, 
 and so manifestly indicative of a 
 disposition to censor the mails not 
 only arbitrarily but secretly, thai 
 we renewed our inxjuiries. This 
 seemed necessary in order to. 
 make sure that the foregoing let- 
 ter w^as deliberately in execution 
 of a policy of secret censorship in- ^ 
 stituted by the Department, and 
 not merely the irresponsible act 
 of a careless first assistant. 
 
 Our letter renewing our previ- 
 ous inquiries was also addressed 
 to the Postmaster General. It 
 bore date September 18, and as 
 will be noticed from its reproduc- 
 tion below it sought the informa- 
 tion on the special ground that 
 the Department's decision had 
 made a precedent, the limitations 
 of which ought to be divulged 
 upon application by persons like- 
 ly to be affected by it in conduct- 
 ing their business: 
 
 I am in receipt of reply of the 13th 
 by the First Assistant Postmaster 
 General to my letter of inquiry of the 
 6th, in which the First Assistant Post- 
 master General advises me that your 
 
 20 
 
"Department cannot undertake to 
 specify in detail the objectionable mat- 
 ter appearing in the issue of the pe- 
 riodical 'Lucifer' of August 17, 1905, 
 which caused the exclusion of that 
 issue from the mails." 
 
 Since receiving that letter I am in- 
 formed that your Department has sus- 
 tained the Postmaster at Chicago la 
 his exclusion of the issue of ''Luci- 
 fer" of August 17, and that this 
 has been done because in that 
 issue it published an editorial ar- 
 ticle entitled ". . ." *and an ar- 
 ticle copied from the Woman's 
 Journal, entitled '*. . ." Inasmuch as 
 the matter has been finally decided by 
 your Department, cind is no longer un- 
 der advisement, I wish to ascertain 
 the extent of your adjudication, for 
 the purpose of understanding its ef- 
 fect as a precedent. 
 
 As t^ the article from the Woman's 
 Journal, your adjudication is suflacient- 
 ly specific in one lespect, namely, the 
 
 . . lines at the top of the . . . col- 
 umn of page ... of "Lucifer" of Aug- 
 ust 17, and as to that I have no ques- 
 tions to ask. 
 
 As to the other part of the same ar- 
 ticle, the matter about . . . way down 
 the . . . column of page ... of "Lu- 
 cifer," which you have adjudicated to 
 te objectionable, will you kindly in- 
 form me whether or not your adjudi- 
 cation rests only or at all upon the 
 naming there of the title of a book? 
 
 * Titles of editorials are here omitted for 
 precautionarj' reasons. See preceding- foot- 
 notes. 
 
 21 
 
I should also like to know, whether 
 your adjudication as to the Woman's 
 Journal article in "Lucifer" rests upon 
 anything else than the naming of that 
 book, and ui)on the . . . lines at the 
 ... of the . . . column of page . . . 
 
 Finally, as to the article in **Lu- 
 cifer" entitled "., . .'* it seems to me 
 especially important, since the Post- 
 master at Chicago advises me that he 
 acts in these questions upon the prece- 
 dents your Department establishes, 
 that I should know the full bearing of 
 the precedent established with refer- 
 ence to this particular article. The 
 article, as you will recall, mentions 
 the title of a book, and quotes from an 
 official report of the United States De- 
 partment of Agriculture. Will you 
 kindly inform me whether your adjudi- 
 cation as to this article rests upon 
 the naming of the book, or the quota- 
 tion from the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment's report, or both? 
 
 Please understand me. I am not en- 
 deavoring to probe the mental proc- 
 esses whereby the conclusions of 
 >our Department were arrived at. All 
 I am asking for is the extent of the 
 conclusions themselves, in so far as 
 they go to make a precedent. 
 
 Regretting what seems to me to be 
 the necessity for further troubling you 
 in this matter, I am, etc. 
 
 The reply of the Department to 
 the foregoing letter confirmed the 
 indications of the First Assist- 
 ant's letter of the 15th. It showed 
 that arbitrary and secret censor- 
 
 22 
 
ship is a deliberate policy of the 
 Department; either that, or else 
 that F. H. Hitelieock, First Assist- 
 ant Postmaster General, deliber- 
 ately misrepresented the Depart- 
 ment. For the reply, signed by F. 
 H. Hitchcock as First Assistant 
 Postmaster General, and dated 
 September 27th, was as follows: 
 
 Your letter of the 18th instant, ad- 
 dressed to the Postmaster General, has 
 teen referred to this oflace for reply. 
 With reference to ycmr questions rela- 
 tive to certain objectionable articles 
 which appeared in the issue of the pub- 
 lication "Lucifer," of August 17th, you 
 are informed that the position of the 
 •Department in the matter was stated 
 in a letter to you bearing date of the 
 13th instant. 
 
 We invite attention to the bu- 
 reaucratic superciliousness of this 
 reply to proper questions re- 
 spectfully asked. The Depart- 
 ment refuses to answer further 
 than by reference to its prior let- 
 ter. In its prior letter it declined 
 to "undertake to specify in detail 
 the objectionable matter," etc. 
 Now what had we asked? Observe 
 the substance of our questions 
 and the Department's reply: 
 
 Question: Did the Depart- 
 ment's adjudication as to a cer- 
 tain part of a certain article "rest 
 only or at all upon the naming 
 there of the title of a book?'' 
 
 23 
 
Answer: The Department *^can- 
 not undertake to specify in detail 
 the objectionable matter.'' 
 
 Question: Did the Depart- 
 ment's adjudication as to the 
 Woman's Journal article rest 
 upon anything else than the name 
 of a book and certain indicated 
 lines? 
 
 Answer: The Department 
 ^^cannot undertake to specify in 
 detail the objectionable matter." 
 
 Question: One of the indicated 
 articles "mentions the title of a 
 book, and quotes from an official 
 report of the United States De- 
 partment of Agriculture. Will 
 you kindly inform me whether 
 youradjudicationas to this article 
 rests upon the naming of the book, 
 or the quotation from the Agricul- 
 tural Department's report, or 
 both?" 
 
 Answer: The Department "can- 
 not undertake to specify in detail 
 the objectionable matter." 
 
 Soon after the foregoing corre- 
 spondence, we learned of the cen- 
 sorship by the Post Office Depart- 
 ment of a subsequent issue of 
 "Lucifer," the issue of October 
 12th. According to a still later is 
 sue of Lucifer, the circumstan- 
 ces of this censorship were these: 
 One of the articles in that issue 
 
 24 
 
of Lucifer, to which the Post Of- 
 fice Department was understood 
 to have objected, was merely a 
 catalogue of books. Among the 
 authors were e|^ohn Stuart Mill, 
 August Bebel and other thinkers 
 of reputation; and none of them is 
 apparently obscene unless every 
 serious discussion of the philos- 
 ophy and physiology of sex is to be 
 considered as in that abhorrent 
 category. The other article con- 
 tains a quotation from the Lon- 
 don Fortnightly Review, which in- 
 cludes one from Bernard Shaw's 
 ^'Man and Superman,'' proposing 
 pensions as a preventive of what 
 President Roosevelt calls race sui- 
 cide. 
 
 Upon learning of the suppres- 
 sion of this issue of Lucifer we 
 addressed the following letter of 
 inquiry to the Postmaster Gener- 
 al, under date of October 20th: 
 
 I am informed that the Chicago 
 postmaster has excluded from the 
 mails the issue of the Chicago paper 
 named "Lucifer," of October 12, 1905, 
 and that the exclusion is based upon 
 an article on page . . .* first and . . . 
 columns, containing a descriptive cata- 
 logue of books, and upon an article on 
 page . . . second column, containing a 
 quotation from Bernard Shaw's "Man 
 and Superman." I am also informed 
 that your Department has sustained 
 
 ♦ See preceding foot noteft. 
 25 
 
this action of the Chicago postmaster. 
 As your decision constitutes a prece- 
 dent by which the Chicago postmaster, 
 as he has informed me relative to your 
 decisions in similar cases heretofore, 
 will be governed in* future cases, will 
 you oblige me with the following in- 
 formation: 
 
 1. Has your Department decided that 
 "Lucifer," of October 12, is unmailable, 
 and if so, for what cause? 
 
 2. Is it because on page . . . that pa- 
 per names and tells where to obtain 
 any unmailable book or books? 
 
 3. Is it because of its quotation on 
 page . . . from Bernard Shaw's "Man 
 and Superman"? 
 
 4. If The Public in commenting upon 
 this decision of your Department, were 
 to reproduce the said catalogue of 
 books, or the said quotation from 
 Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman,*' 
 would the postmaster at Chicago be 
 required to consider this decision of 
 your Department in the "Lucifer" 
 case as a precedent and accordingly to 
 exclude that issue of The Public from 
 the mails? 
 
 I make this request as responsible 
 editor of The Public, for the purpose 
 of ascertaining to what extent, under 
 precedents made by your Department. 
 I shall be at liberty, in criticising your 
 decision in the "Lucifer" case, to state 
 the facts, without subjecting The Pub- 
 lic to exclusion from the mails by 
 your Department. 
 
 To this inquiry we received the 
 following response from the office 
 
of the First Assistant Postmaster 
 General: 
 
 I beg to acknowledge receipt of your 
 letter of the 20th instant, to the Post- 
 master General, in reference to the 
 publication "Lucifer.** 
 
 In reply to your inquiry you are in- 
 formed that the Postmaster at Chi- 
 cago was instructed to decline to ac- 
 cept for mailing copies of "Lucifer,"' 
 of the issue of October 12, 1905, for the 
 reason that such number, which was 
 submitted to the Department, con- 
 tained matter of an obscene character. 
 
 As you were advised under date of 
 the 13th ultimo in reference to an 
 earlier issue of "Lucifer,** it is not 
 practicable for the Department to at- 
 tempt to point out all the offensive 
 passages upon which the exclusion of 
 the issue from the mails was based, 
 nor can the Department undertake to 
 state what would or would not be un- 
 mailable, in advance of the matter be- 
 ing actually presented for transmis- 
 sion in the mails. 
 
 A reduction of this correspond- 
 ence also to questions and an- 
 swers produces the following 
 rather remarkable result: 
 
 Question: Does the Depart- 
 ment exclude the issue of the pa- 
 per in question because it "names 
 and tells where to obtain any un- 
 mailable book or books?" 
 
 Answer: "It is not practica- 
 ble for the Department to attempt 
 to point out all the offensive pas- 
 
 27 
 
sages upon which the exclusion of 
 the issue from the mails is based/' 
 
 Question: Is it because of the 
 quotation from Bernard Shaw's 
 ^•Man and Superman''? 
 
 Answer: ^'It is not practicable 
 for the Department to attempt to 
 point out all the offensive pas- 
 sages' upon which the exclusion of 
 the issue from the mails is based." 
 
 Question: If The Public were 
 "to reproduce the said catalogue 
 of books, or the said quotation 
 from Bernard Shaw^'s ^Man and 
 Sui>erman/ would llic ]>ostmaster 
 at Chicago be rcMiuiKMl to consid- 
 er this decision as a ]>r('cedent and 
 accordingly to exclude that issue 
 of The Public from the mails?" 
 
 Answ(M': The Department can- 
 not nndciiake "to state what 
 w^ould or would not be unmail- 
 able in advance of the mattcM- Ix - 
 ing actually presented for trans- 
 mission in the mails." 
 
 Now, why was it impracticable 
 for the Department to state 
 whether or not the exclusion of 
 Lucifer w^as because it printed the 
 names and jdaces for procuring 
 certain books? The Department 
 was not asked "to point out all of- 
 fensivc' ])assages." 
 
 And why was it impracticable for 
 the Dcjiartinent to state whether 
 
 28 
 
or not the paper in question was 
 ^excluded because of its quotation 
 from "Man and Supeiinaif'? To 
 do this it was not necessary '^to 
 point out all ott'ensive i>assages." 
 Finally, why couldn't the De- 
 partment undertake to inform us 
 whether the jiostmaster at Chi- 
 cago would be required to consid- 
 er the decision in the Lucifer case 
 as a precedent? What is the 
 meaning of refusals by the De- 
 partment to state in advance of 
 mailing whether matter excluded 
 from the mail when published by 
 one periodical would be unmail- 
 able if published by another? 
 This last question almost answers 
 itself. 
 
 II 
 
 We have now proved our asser- 
 tions. But that there may be no 
 reasonable question of our having 
 done so, let us summarize the as- 
 sertions and the proof in support 
 of them. 
 
 First. We have proved by the 
 foregoing correspondence that 
 any periodical is subject to exclu- 
 sion from the mails as a purveyor 
 of obscenity, upon the mere arbi- 
 trary order of administrative post 
 oflfice officials. 
 
 Second. We have proved, also 
 by the foregoing correspondence, 
 that exclusion orders are made by 
 
 29 
 
the Post Office Department osten- 
 sibly in accordance with its own 
 rulings as to what constitutes ob- 
 scenity, and that these rulings, 
 though treated as precedents by 
 postmasters, are kept profoundly 
 secret by the Department. 
 
 Third. We have proved by ref- 
 erence to a previous article on this 
 general subject (p. 424), which is 
 too lengthy to be reproduced here, 
 that the courts hold decisions of 
 the Postmaster General in these 
 matters to be absolutely beyond 
 the power of the judiciary to over- 
 ride or restrain, even though he 
 decide without evidence and in 
 manifest bad faith. 
 
 Fourth. We have proved by the 
 above correspondence, supple- 
 mented now by the best testimony 
 possible, in view of the necessity 
 the Department imposes upon us 
 of proving the negative of an issue 
 on which it holds the affirmative 
 and possesses all the affirmative 
 evidence if there be any, that in 
 practice the Department does ex- 
 clude from the mails for obscenity 
 periodicals which in fact are not 
 obscene. The correspondence 
 proves the first part of this con- 
 tention, namely, that the Depart- 
 ment excludes periodicals alleged 
 to contain obscene articles. As 
 to the second and essential part 
 of the contention, namely, that 
 
 30 
 
the articles are in fact not ob- 
 scene, the Department refuses to 
 indicate the decisive facts, which 
 are within its own control and in 
 the nature of things cannot be 
 known to outsiders. The sev- 
 eral articles indicated above by 
 the Chicago postmaster as cause 
 for exclusion are clearly not ob- 
 scene. The fact that the Depart- 
 ment refuses to particularize 
 should raise a reasonable pre- 
 sumption that there is nothing 
 which it can particularize. And 
 in support of this presumption we 
 now positively testify, after read- 
 ing the excluded papers through, 
 that they in fact contain no word, 
 phrase or thought which can with 
 any show of reason be character- 
 ized as obscene. 
 
 Five. It is not necessary to 
 prove that these circumstances af- 
 ford dangerous opportunities for 
 corruption in the Post Office De- 
 partment. When the law permits 
 postal officials to exclude from 
 the mails any periodical, arbitrar- 
 ily in their own discretion, with no 
 appeal to the courts, upon the 
 bare pretense that they contain 
 obscenity but without any re- 
 quirement that the alleged ob> 
 scenity be particularized with suf- 
 ficient definiteness to permit of a 
 judgment upon the good faith of 
 
 31 
 
the exclusion, and when tJie De- 
 partment passes upon the ques- 
 tion not only arbitrarily but in se- 
 cret, the opportunities for secret 
 corruption are so enormous that 
 only the corruptible official in the 
 place for corrupting possibili- 
 ties is necessary to produce a 
 regime of corruption. 
 
 We submit, then, that we have 
 established all that in Ibis ni licle 
 we set out to prove. Any [m riodic- 
 al may be peremptorily cxc luded 
 from the mails as a purveyor of 
 obscenity though it contain noth- 
 ing obscene, and this upon th^» 
 mere order of administrative 
 postal officials; exclusion orders 
 are made in alleged accordance 
 with secret precedents, the lim- 
 itations of which are withheld 
 from publishers seeking to adapt 
 their editorial rights to postal 
 rulings; the courts declare them- 
 selves powerless to interfere, even 
 though exclusions be made with- 
 out evidence and in manifest bad 
 faith; the Post Office Department 
 does in fact in this arbitrary man- 
 ner exclude from the mails as ob- 
 scene, periodicals which in fact 
 are not obscene. Therefore, as the 
 law^ now stands, it affords a degree 
 of opportunity for corrupt dis- 
 crimination and oppression which 
 it is unsafe to repose in any of- 
 
 32 
 
ficial and which ought to be guard- 
 ed against by Congress. 
 
 Ill 
 
 The remedy for this fungus 
 growth upon the postal service, a 
 service originally intended only 
 for a national convenience but 
 now turned into a national police 
 system which operates through ir- 
 responsible "administrative proc- 
 ess" and from a "star chamber" 
 tribunal, lies with Congress. 
 
 Shall the right to mail service in 
 the United States, now become a 
 necessity of the common life, de- 
 pend upon the caprice, the bigotry 
 or the corruptibility of one man at 
 the head of a AVashington depart- 
 ment or his subordinate at the 
 head of a bureau? 
 
 That question is distinctly 
 raised. 
 
 The courts have answered, Yes. 
 What has Congress to say? 
 
 33 
 
The Free Speech 
 League 
 
 employs its funds mainly for 
 printing and mailing circulars 
 and pamphlets to make known 
 to influential persons the pre- 
 sent pressing and increasing 
 dangers to liberty of the press 
 and mails. Many are stupidly 
 blind to the facts; many are 
 slow to awaken to their im- 
 portance, and the great mass 
 are content to let some one 
 else protest and pay costs. 
 The few who feel inspired to 
 help us hold what we have of 
 free press and regain what has 
 been lost through lack of ' 'eter- 
 nal vigilance/ may send their 
 contributions to the Treasurer, 
 E. B. Foote, Jr., 120 Lexing- 
 ton Ave., New York City. 
 
 84 
 
COPIES OF THIS 
 PAMPHLET 
 
 will be furnished on the following terms: 
 MAILED TO ANY ADDRESS, POSTPAID 
 
 Single Copy . $0.03 
 
 100 Copies, mailed in bulk . . 1.75 
 100 Copies, to varying addresses 3.00 
 
 Our Advancing 
 Postal Censorship 
 
 Reprinted from THE PUBLIC 
 of August 12, 1905. 
 
 28 Pages, 3 cents, postpaid; 100 
 copies, $1.50, postpaid. 
 
 The publishers will send free 
 f.o any address their catalog-ue 
 of books relating" to funda- 
 mental democracy. 
 
 The Public Publishing 
 Company 
 
 First National Bank Building:, CHICAGO, ILL 
 
 36 
 
The Public 
 
 LOUIS F. POST, EDITOR 
 
 A Journal 
 
 of Fundamental Democracy 
 
 and a Weekly Narrative 
 
 of History in the 
 
 Making 
 
 HAS THESE PRINCIPAL FEATURES: 
 
 A 
 
 CONCISE, but complete, 
 interesting and non-partisan 
 weekly history of the world, 
 each instalment containing 
 page references to earlier 
 mention of the events noted, 
 so that the issues together form an up- 
 to-date narrative, most handy to read and 
 consult, and in best form for binding and 
 preservation, with full yearly index. 
 
 ^ Searching and fearless editorial dis- 
 cussion of present affairs in the spirit of 
 that clause of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence which declares that *'all men 
 are created equal.*' 
 
 ^,\ Striking selections from contempora- 
 neous publications, of interest and 
 affording instruction; and candid reviews 
 of really important books. 
 
 Ti Graphic and timely cartoons by J. W. 
 Bengough. 
 
 36 
 
Comments 
 
 You are doing a great work with 
 The Public .... You teach the 
 teachers, and the good goes broadening 
 down surely if slowly. — Wm. Lloyd Garri- 
 son, Lexington, Mass. 
 
 I enjoy The Public. It has broadened 
 my views of humanity. — A. J. Inloes, 
 Secretary Board of Education, Bingham- 
 ton, N. Y. 
 
 The Public gets better every issue. 
 A. B. Bradford, Clarkrange, Tenn. 
 
 When I miss The Public I feel as if I 
 had lost a sincere and intellectual friend. — 
 Hon. Edgar L. Ryder, Ossining, N. Y. 
 
 SUBSCRIPTIONS 
 
 Yearly. $i . oo 
 
 Half yearly 50 
 
 Quarterly 25 
 
 Free of postage in United States, 
 Canada, Cuba and Mexico. 
 
 SAMPLE COPIES ON APPLICATION 
 
 The Public Publishing Company 
 
 First INationol Bank Building 
 CHICAGO. ILL. 
 
THE PROPHET 
 SERIES 
 
 Each in attractive paper covef , with 
 portrait, size of pag-e 3^4: in. x 8>^ in. 
 
 1. A GREAT INIQUITY 
 
 By COUNT LEO TOLSTOY 
 
 An article on property in land. 
 48 pages, 10 cents, postpaid; 12 copies for $1.00, 
 postpaid. 
 
 2. GERRIT SMITH ON LAND 
 
 MONOPOLY 
 
 With introduction by Wm. Lloyd Garrison, the 
 younger. 
 
 32 pages, 10 cents, postpaid; 12 copies for 
 $i.oo, postpaid. 
 
 ,3. JOHN P. ALTGELD; a Sketch 
 
 By LOUIS F. POST 
 
 An appreciative biographical sketch of the late 
 governor of Illinois, with portrait reproduced 
 from the celebrated painting by Ralph Clarkson. 
 
 32 pages, 10 cents, postpaid ; 12 copies for $1.00, 
 postpaid. 
 
 4. TOM L. JOHNSON; a Sketch 
 
 By LOUIS F. POST 
 
 The fullest biographical sketch yet written of 
 the thrice-elected Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, with 
 an account of his work as "the best mayor of the 
 best governed city in the United States," 
 
 60 pages, 15 cents, postpaid; 7 copies for $1.00, 
 postpaid 
 
 THE PUBLIC PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 First National Bank Baiidingr, CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
A GREAT INIQUITY 
 
 By LEO TOLSTOY 
 
 An Article on Property in Land 
 
 (Reprinted from The London Times and from 
 The Public.) 
 
 It seems to me that Tolstoy has made* 
 a most remarkable, though brief, statement 
 of the whole question. His illustrations 
 are well-nigh perfect and his appeal is 
 irresistible. All in all, it is tht clearest 
 and most forcible statemeut of this great 
 human problem that I have seen for a long 
 time. — Victor C. Alder son, Presideyit 
 Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colo, 
 
 Popular edition, paper, 48 pages, 
 5%x3, 4 cents a copy, postpaid; loo 
 copies to one address, $2.25- to vary- 
 ing addresses, $3.50— postpaid. 
 
 Illustrated edition, paper cover, 48 
 pages, 8)^x334:, 10 cents a copy, post- 
 paid; 12 copies for $1.00, postpaid. 
 
 Smaller Profits, Reduced Salaries 
 and Lower Wages 
 
 THE CONDITION, THE CAUSE, THE CURE 
 By GEORGE L. RUSBY 
 
 1 6 mo, 80 pages, 5 cents a copy, post- 
 paid; 10 copies, 40 cents, postpaid. 
 
 THE PUBLIC PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
 First National Bank Building, Chicago. 
 
 39 
 
T 
 
 HE OPEN SHOP 
 
 AND 
 
 HE CLOSED SHOP 
 
 By LOUIS F. POST 
 
 Editor of The Public 
 
 "It is the most terse, pithy and con- 
 clusive article upon the subject tha^ has 
 been published. All wage earners, organ- 
 ized or unorganized, should read it." — John 
 FiTZPATRicK, Organizer Chicago Federation 
 of Labor. 
 
 "The logic of the article appeals vvith 
 great force to every candid mind, aad I 
 sincerely hope it will be widely read, not 
 only by working people, but also by 
 employers and business men." — Joi n C. 
 Harding, Organizer Chicago Typograph- 
 ical Union No. i6. 
 
 Paper, 64 pages, 5%x3. 5 cents a copy; 
 by mail, 6 cents. One dozen copies, 50 
 cents; by mail, 56 cents. 100 copies to one 
 address, $3.50— to varying addresses, $4.75 
 — postpaid. 
 
 The publishers issue other pamphlets and a 
 variety of books, together with The Public, and 
 are devoted entirely to the promulgation of the 
 best literature relating to real or fundamental 
 democracy (in the broad sense of the word) 
 Sample copies of The Public and book cata- 
 logue will be sent on request. 
 
 THE PUBLIC PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
 First National Bank Building, CHICAGO 
 
 40 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 IBTURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROW] 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 Ills book is due on the last date stamped below, 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall 
 
 m 
 
 \9W3'J 
 
 Tt^ 
 
 RECEDED 
 
 -B«- 
 
 inT?8'fi.?-QPN 
 
 MftYe i9£n 
 
 [I'-h^o . h^ 
 
 U8kmi<Y uS£^ 
 
 ^^^^=^' 
 
 m^^ 
 
 RECD LD 
 
 APR 27 1961 
 
 UBRAa> USE 
 
 M^ ^?961 
 
 MAY 22 1987 
 
 KiiA.^ 
 
 l96^ 
 
 R' 
 
 APRS 2 198 
 
 aM 
 
 63Vt 
 
 QRcuuriQN oa 
 
 T* 01 A__Kn«v,^ »«A 
 
 General Library