After Cline's review of
La Bas appeared on 30 March 1924, the publisher received an invitation to appear in the office of the District Attorney to defend the book. A complaint had been lodged by John S. Sumner (1869-1971), who was then the head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an arch-conservative organization that had successfully prosecuted and removed from sale books like
The Genius by Theodore Dreiser in 1916, and failed to remove from sale
Jurgen by James Branch Cabell in 1919.
On Friday, 11 April 1924, an article in the
New York World noted that
La Bas had been withdrawn by the publisher, after the threat of prosecution. Albert and Charles Boni were a new publishing firm, having been founded in 1923.
On Saturday, 12 April 1924,
New York World columnist Heywood Broun gave literary editor Laurence Stallings much of his column to describe what happened. I quote the Stallings portion here in full.
“Before you
begin the assault on the censors,” writes Laurence Stallings. “may
I confess partial responsibility for the suppression of La Bas?
It was reviewed for the Sunday page by Leonard Cline, who stated that
Huysmans work, while a terrific piece of demonology, was certainly
not a book for smut-hunters. Charles Boni, its publisher, knew that
The Sunday World was carrying a review, and feared that Sumner would
seize upon the book if the work was reported as Cline had done. The
review, of course, was run anyway. Just as Boni feared, Sumner got
it, and cited to District Attorney Banton that a good, clean paper
had adjudged La Bas, however indirectly, as worthy of the
reformer’s hire. Boni’s fears were realized in full, and he sent
the plates to Sumner’s society.
“I think the
case interesting enough to be stated in full. Boni had two books he
was fearful for. You know, of course, that it was once proposed that
Sumner pass on manuscripts and save the publisher the expense of
printing books Sumner doesn’t like, and that he declined. So Boni
had no alternative but print the books, or discard the manuscripts
without a trial. Other publishers had rejected La Bas. He
printed them. Havelock Ellis, in his Affirmations, admires
them both. I cite Ellis, because in so far as I know he is the
fairest, most wind-swept mind in the profession.
“The first book
was de Selincourt’s One Little Boy. This study of
adolescence found critics as widely removed as Margaret Sanger and
the Y.M.C.A. calling it important. Boni was safe. He published La
Bas and was on the mat in the District Attorney’s office before
three weeks was out. Nearly 2,500 copies (the first edition) were
sold. Wednesday he sent the remaining thirty-seven copies and the
plates to Sumner’s society.
“I hold no brief
for the Boni brothers. They quit rather than fight. Yet they may not
be censured particularly for having elected to lie down. Young
publishers with little capital, they stood to lose everything by a
fight. When Sumner hits a book it is done through District Attorney
Banton’s office. The publisher is invited to call with his
attorney. The D.A. cites the passages and asks the lawyer if he
believes his client has a chance under the penal section, with the
book in question before a jury of twelve men.
“The Boni house
would have lost the La Bas fight in all probability. Also, a
great many bookshops would have discriminated against other
publications on their list. In other words, they would not fight,
because a fight would have cost them something.
“Few publishers
will stand up and test a book before a jury. Give Seltzer credit for
artistic nerve, and mark down Knopf for having eaten crow last fall
when Floyd Dell’s Janet March was withdrawn. Knopf even
declined to tell me that it had been withdrawn and Banton asked that
it be given no publicity.
“It seems to me
that the public might as well know that there is a definite
censorship operating against it effectively in the person on Sumner,
and with whatever strong financial influences there may be to back
him. Perhaps there is no use shouting either for or against a Clean
Books Bill. It would all resolve into one arbiter of literary
elegance, who probably should be another such well-intentioned man
with a financial security. The situation would be unchanged whatever
laws were operating. As usual, the poor man either cannot or will not
fight for his rights, and the well-off man is sufficiently solvent to
disregard the many laws regulating his reading and drinking.
“Perhaps all
statuses supervising the publication of books should be wiped off the
board. I object and confess to an illiberality precisely that of
Sumner’s. The difference is only an artistic one. Thus the only
book law which I should call just would be one empowering me to
assume the functions and arrogances just now embodied in Sumner, I
would not hesitate to sweep away juvenile pornography written by
hired men for country boys to read in the hay-loft, myself fanatical
enough to forbid them the literary delights I myself once knew. Even
here would be the typical reform attitude, despite an artistic
intention. My plan would insist that little boys who found themselves
unable to stave off puberty might be forced to read Havelock Ellis
and others as equally fascinating about the most fascinating phase of
human existence. . . . Thus I confess that no new book law will
work; and I am damned if I can think of anything better than Sumner
or myself.”
On Wednesday, 16 April 1924, Heywood Broun gave a part of his regular column "It Seems to Me" over to Leonard Cline, who thereby got to voice his views on what happened with La Bas and his review of it. I copy the complete Cline part below.