 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174 |
< Unnecessary Disturbance. (continued from page 14-90) >
your case, it is not a matter for wonder that Anthony Comstock is emboldened to pursue the same course with others. Having discovered and manifested to the world the true nature of the animal, which was concealed by the spurious hide with which you enveloped yourself, it is not surprising that he should imagin himself able to carry to an equally successful issue the same experiment upon another subject.” Insolence can scarcely transcend this. To us it seems that under the circumstances no true gentleman would write in this way. Though Comstock succeeded in getting us in prison, it cannot be considered that his efforts were crowned with success, nor was his position strengthened thereby. Perhaps nothing has hurt him more, and no person has shown him up so effectually. The Christian cause was certainly not strengthened by our imprisonment.
5. Here is another morceau: “And this is where comes in the pain which your letter causes. It is mournful to see one prove himself so far recreant to the principles which he has throughout his life professed to maintain as to ally himself—in a manner to him the most effectual possible—with the enemy, whose boast and business it is to trample those principles in the dust, and persecute their upholders and defenders.” Hardly anything could be more untruthful than this. We hav not proved recreant to principles which we hav maintained or proposed to maintain all our life, or any considerable portion of it. We hav trampled no principles in the dust, nor hav we attempted to persecute the upholders of principles. Because we defended at the risk of our life the right to sell “Cupid’s Yokes,” it does not follow that we are under obligations to defend all sorts of nastiness, nor do we believe that the circulation of such nastiness is in any sense a “principle.”
6. Mr. Cobb’s effort to show that we consider Comstock justified in the outrage he has committed is as false as all the rest of it. We hav never justified anything Comstock has done, nor do we think him capable of performing a good deed from a good motiv. We certainly hope he may not succeed in getting Heywood in prison again. We assuredly hav not reversed our views, nor made them to accord with Comstock or his society.
7. Mr. Cobb undertakes to make a point on us because we had not been fully apprised of the specifications upon which Mr. Heywood had been arrested, but he was no more successful here than in other directions. It seems by subsequent reports in the Boston papers that we were correct.
8. The slur about our being a “little fellow” and about our incentivs, is, perhaps, very sharp. We will let it pass as such. If the correspondent is the model or pattern to which we should try to enlarge ourselvs, possibly we may wait a while before trying the swelling process.
9. To the question, “I ask if Mr. Heywood had confined himself to the circulation of that which was permitted and would bring no risk to him, what principles of Liberalism could be subserved by it?” we hav to answer that he would at least hav violated no principle that we are aware of. We know of no principle of Liberalism that requires a person to outrage decency, or to print and circulate anything that insults the better sense of mankind. We do not believe that any principle of Liberalism requires any one to make it their chief object to circulate that which is indecent, distasteful, or offensiv to ninety-nine people in a hundred. The principles of Liberalism call upon all its votaries to not only lead good lives, but to do nothing in opposition to that which is pure and clean. Such principles as require a man or woman to delve in that which is nasty, unclean, and indecent, whether published in a paper, issued in slips and circulated, or spoken in public meetings, according to our views are not the principles of Liberalism, and had better at once be disclaimed.
10. Possibly we are unable to comprehend Mr. Heywood, and not competent to appreciate the “great principles” which actuate him in giving circulation to that which to us seems improper and indecent, and therefore Mr. Cobb is extremely generous in allowing our inability to so understand to “serve as a mantle of charity to cover our whole proceeding with regard to this question.”
11. While upon this subject perhaps it is proper to define our position clearly, though we may possibly repeat ourselvs somewhat. We are decidedly in favor of free thought, free discussion, free speech, a free press, and free mails. We do not believe in prohibiting the expression of honest thoughts and convictions. Still we believe in maintaining purity and decency. Because we regard free speech, a free press, and free mails as a principle worth contending for, and worth suffering for, we do not believe in the practice of talking and circulating that which is impure and offensiv to the usual sense of decency. While we favor free speech, and will do our utmost to defend it, we condemn that looseness of speech which leads one to talk constantly of that which is low and indecent. We are so obtuse as not to be able to see any principle involved in delving in the low and indecent. As much as free speech is to be esteemed, there are certain things, certain duties and functions of human beings, which should be performed in secret, and should not be talked of in public, nor documents circulated in reference thereto. Included with such subjects which decency requires should be tabooed in mixed assemblies, and reading matter for general circulation, are remarks about sexual commerce, and the organs of generation. There are times and places where a consideration of these subjects may be proper, in works upon physiology and in considering the propagation of our species, and the functions of the two sexes. All young persons should be informed of their own functions and their own organizations, with results of excesses and improprieties; but because this is true it does not justify constant allusions to these subjects at improper times and improper places. We can scarcely respect the motivs which impel any one to do so.
12. While we accord to Walt Whitman the meed of a poet, a philosopher, and a good Liberal, we think he has written some things that had better hav been omitted. We do not condemn his works in the volumes as published. They hav been accepted and approved by many of the highest literary judges of our country; and we sell them as we do other works, and are willing to take the risk of being sent to prison for doing so. Every person in America has the right to own and read Walt Whitman’s poems; but still we do not approve of selecting out and circulating separately such paragraphs as the common sense of mankind pronounces indecent, and simply because they are indecent. We cannot, as we hav said, see that any “principle” vital to Liberalism is involved in doing so, that Walt Whitman is thereby benefited, or that any good cause or purpose is promoted.
13. We believe that the Liberals of America hav a moral character to maintain, and that it is their duty to defend that which is pure and high-minded. It will never do for them to become the champions of nastiness, filth, and impurity. They are equal to the average public in maintaining purity and morality, and there is no reason why they should be regarded as the defenders of indecency and uncleanness.
14. We claim to hav the same right to entertain our convictions upon this subject that we accord to those who differ from us, and we see no reason why we should not exercise the right of giving expression to our convictions, or why we should be abused for such expression. While some condemn us for the views we hold, we hav the best reasons for knowing that many, for whose opinions we hav the highest respect, approve of them. There will probably never be a perfect unanimity of views as to what constitutes the obscene; also as to the exercise of individual rights. What is obscene to some minds is not at all obscene to others; what some regard as impure others look upon as strictly pure. People will undoubtedly ever differ upon these subjects. Neither can one person exactly lay down the rules as to what another may do, or may not do. Some go so far as to maintain that a man has the <... continues on page 14-92 >