CHURCH TAXATION AGAIN.

NEW ORLEANS, October 8th, 1890.

EDITOR CURrent Comment and Legal MISCELLANY :

The Chicago Inter-Ocean takes me to task for under-estimation in my communication to you, appearing in September number, of the number of churches in Chicago; which number, for all denominations, it shows to be four hundred and forty-five. I think that my estimate of eighty for Chicago, and one hundred for all of Cook County, Ill., appears, from all the text, to be confined only to Catholic churches; but, since so high an authority as the Inter-Ocean does not see this restriction, I consider it my duty to make my meaning clear, and such is the purpose of this communication. FRANK MCGLOIN.

[The article alluded to is entitled "A ridiculous error," and is as follows :]

In an article on the "Taxation of Churches," published in the September number of CURRENT COMMENT AND LEGAL MISCELLANY, of Philadelphia, Judge Frank McGloin, of the Court of Appeals, Parish of Orleans, and editor of the Holy Family Journal, makes the following statement:

66

Chicago has but, in all its extent, as shown by Hoffman's Directory for 1890, of churches, large and small, eighty. Thirteen from the same directory, I make the number of churches in Cook County, outside of Chicago. A total of one hundred, for all the county, would be giving a very large margin."

It is to be hoped Judge McGloin has never been in Chicago, nor ever seen the official reports of such denominations as the Catholic, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Presbyterian, and other religious organizations. Hoffman's Directory for 1890-whatever that may be, and wherever it may be published-is so much misled and misleading as to be a laughing stock to any intelligent reader. If the figures were not published in a periodical like CURRENT COMment and LegaL MISCELLANY, of the goodly city of Philadelphia, it would hardly be necessary to correct them.

The Hoffman Directory figures for 1890 cannot be said to be anywhere near correct; in fact, they are ridiculously wrong. To show how egregiously the Hoffman Directory has blundered, we take the following figures from the Chicago City Directory for 1890 (published in July):

Making a total of four hundred and forty-five churches, instead of eighty, as reported by this judicial contributor above mentioned. It is to be hoped that he knows more about what is contained in the law books than he does about what Chicago contains.

STREET BANDS can be put in a state of expectant rest by sucking a lemon.

FROM a long letter written by an eminent medical man, we condense the following: "I was greatly shocked at the number of persons intoxicated at the banquet given to the International Medical Congress at Berlin. My surprise was increased to note that many of them were eminent German and French teachers of medicine. I had supposed medical men, accustomed to use wine and beer daily were less likely to be intoxicated than the partial abstinent American or Englishman, who naturally are more easily affected by large quantities of wine. At the banquet given to the congress at London, a small number of men were stupidly intoxicated, and at Washington the number was still less. As far as could be observed those cases were mostly persons not well known. At Berlin it was the opposite; many very prominent men and leaders were offensively hilarious or stupid. The drinking seemed to be of a reckless, impulsive character, which is only seen in low life in this country. At London and Washington, men who were notedly excessive users of spirits drank with reserve and caution, and gave no evidence of intoxication, but at Berlin it was the contrary." He believes that the American physicians are the most temperate in the world, and exhibit more pride of character and personal respect at banquets where there is a general unbending of social restraints.—Quartery Journal of Inebriety.

THE KREUTZER SONATA CASE.

(Reprinted from The Legal Intelligencer, by permission.)

THE COMMONWEATH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. ARENTSEN et al. IN THE COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.

(1) It is an offense at common law as well as by the criminal code of this State for any one to publish, sell, expose to sale, or exhibit any indecent, lewd, or obscene book.

(2) The Kreutzer Sonata, of Count Tolstoi, is not such a book. (3) It is no excuse for a person charged with such an offense to say that he did it with a good intention, or for the purpose of exposing error, or inculcating virtue.

On Habeas Corpus.

Opinion by Thayer, P. J., September 24th, 1890.

The defendants were bound over to this Court charged with the offense of selling and exposing to sale obscene literature. The book which they were charged with selling is an English translation of Count Tolstoi's Kreutzer Sonata, made by Frederick Lyster. The book is a novel possessing very little dramatic interest or literary merit. Its apparent object, as appears not only from its text, but from the author's preface, is to teach, not only that celibacy is better than marriage, but that marriage itself is a fall from a pure and innocent state, is contrary to the teachings of Christ, and inimical to man's highest and best spiritual interests, that the true ideal of a Christian life is a life of celibacy and of absolute, perpetual, and unconditional continence and chastity. The author candidly admits that his conclusions against the innocent and holiness of the married state were not in his mind when he began to write his book, but were arrived at in the course of his reflections while the subject and the story were being developed under his hand. "I had not," he says in his preface, "the faintest presentiment that the train of thought I had started would lead me whither it did. I was terrified by my own conclusion, and I was at first disposed to reject it, but it was impossible not to hearken to the voice of my reason and my conscience." When reminded that the doctrine which he inculcates as a Christian duty must, if universally adopted and carried out, necessarily result in the extinction of all human life upon the earth, he admits the conclusion, and accepts it, with the same equanimity with which he insists upon the doctrine. Nevertheless it is everywhere apparent in the book that the insane fanaticism which has brought the author's

mind to the absurd conclusion which he has reached, is the fanaticism, not of vice, but of over zealous virtue. If, in his book, he has come to the conclusion that marriage is an impure and unholy state of life it must be admitted that he denounces libertinism, lewdness, and a dissolute life in terms still more severe. If he teaches that the married state is a fall from absolute purity and virtue, he at the same time anathematizes a libidinous life and all licentious practices. If he opposes marriage, as less pure and holy than a single life, he at the same time scourges lust and debauchery with a whip of scorpions. There is nothing in this book which can, by any possibility, be said to commend licentiousness, or to make it in any respect attractive, or to tempt any one to its commission. On the contrary, all its teachings paint lewdness and immortality in the most revolting colors, nor is there any obscenity, or indecency, in the language used, or in the story told, however it may offend a refined taste. It undoubtedly teaches the doctrine to which I have already referred, viz., that celibacy is better than marriage, and a higher and purer state of being, and that it is the true ideal of a perfect Christian life to which all Christian men and women should aspire. This strikes us, of course, as being very absurd and ridiculous, and as being opposed, alike to Christianity and to the best interests of society. It may even seem to us to be the product of an insane mind. Yet the doctrine is by no means new in the world. The same idea was prevalent among many of the early Christians, who looked upon marriage as one of the consequences of the fall, and regarded it, as has been said by a writer upon this subject, as "a tolerated admission of an impure and sinful nature." The hermits and anchorites of the early Christian times considered abstinence from marriage and from all sexual commerce as the triumph of sanctity and the proof and means of spiritual perfection. Modern Christianity, with a clearer and more sensible view of the subject, while it denounces licentiousness, looks upon marriage as a divine institution. Roman Catholics regard it with the veneration of a sacrament, and all Christian sects see in it an institution which lies at the foundation of all well-ordered civilized society. Count Tolstoi's Kreutzer Sonata may contain very absurd and foolish views about marriage. It may shock our ideas of the sanctity and nobility of that important relation, but it cannot, on that account, be called an obscene libel. There is no obscenity in it. On the contrary it denounces obscenity of every description on almost every page. Nor can the language in which he expresses his ideas be said to be in any

proper sense, obscene, lewd, or indecent. It is not against the law to print or to sell books which contain ideas and doctrines upon religious subjects which conflict with, and are contrary to the orthodox teachings upon those subjects. Every man has the right, under such a government as ours, to discuss such questions either orally or in print, if he does so in a proper and becoming manner, and does not, in doing so, violate the decencies of life. He may call in question and argue against any received doctrine of the Christian faith, if he uses in doing so proper and becoming language. But if one should introduce into such a discussion blasphemous language or ideas, or obscene, lewd, or indecent thoughts or words, or should make his discussion the occasion for reviling and scoffing at the most sacred things, or speaking of them in a profane, abusive, and indecent manner, he would unquestionably be liable to be indicted and punished therefor. Undoubtedly it was an offense at common law, punishably by fine and imprisonment, for any one to sell, or expose for sale or public view, any obscene book, print or picture: 4 Bl. Com. 150; 1 Hawkins P. C., chap. 51; 2 Camp. 89; Stephen Cr. L. 115; and this principle of the common law has been expressly enacted in the penal code of this State, in the 40th section of that code which declares that "if any person shall publish or sell any filthy and obscene libel, or shall expose to sale, exhibit, or sell any indecent, lewd, and obscene print," he shall upon conviction pay a fine, not exceeding five hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding one year. Nor can it avail a defendant charged with such an offense to say that he did it with a good intention or for the purpose of exposing error or inculcating virtue. The law, as it is now well settled, upon this subject, will not listen to any such excuse: The Queen v. Hicklin (3 Law Rep. Queen's Bench) 360; United States v. Burnett, 16 Blatchford's Circuit Ct. Rep. 338; Bell v. The State, I Swan. R. 42; Com. v. Snelling, 15 Pick. 337. Much, of course, may in some cases depend upon the manner and the circumstances of the publication and exposure to sale. A medical publisher may lawfully publish for use by medical men, works of a certain description, which, if offered for sale generally and non-professionally, for the purpose of making money by pandering to a lascivious curiosity, would expose him to indictment and punishment. If the Kreutzer Sonata could with any propriety be classified as an obscene work, if it contained lewd or obscene ideas, encouraged lasciviousness, or if it contained obscene or indecent language, the defendants in the present case would un