the issue "non-mailable matter" as containing material "obviously calculated to stimulate the lust of the homosexual reader," and "filthy and ob-

scene.

This fantastic verdict was immediately taken to the U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, where, March 1, 1957, Judge Barnes, Hamley and Ross affirmed the previous judgment in voluble terms. Nowhere in this ruling nor the previous one, nor in the briefs filed by the Government's attorneys was an attempt made to define obscenity, or in what specific ways ONE Magazine was obscene, Mr. Julber pointed out.

At this point, two years had passed in litigation, and the next step was to appeal to the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Julber advised such an appeal, prepared a written petition to the highest Court setting forth the issues, and personally traveled to Washington, D.C.. to file briefs with the Court.

Months passed, during which time the suspense grew week by week. Would the Court even hear our case? Our attorney pointed out that the Court only hears one out of a hundred cases which are filed for review-it hears only those cases it considers of sufficient importance or moment to warrant its valuable time. Yet he was sure our case was of such importance.

Finally, on January 13, 1958, the electrifying news came. By unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed all of the lower court holdings, holding that the October 1954 issue of ONE magazine was not in fact obscene, but was an exercise of American free speech.

Thus, for the first time in American publishing history, a decision binding on every court and every public agency in the country now stands: a decision affirming in effect that it is in no way improper to describe a love affair be-

one

tween two homosexuals, that humorous and satirical light-hearted handling of homsexuality by no means constitutes obscenity, that writing about the subject is to be governed only by such rules of propriety and good taste as would be used with other topics. That this decision was rendered UNANIMOUSLY and without oral arguments only adds to its great forcefulness and powerful vindication of ONE's publishing policies.

The great gratitude and appreciation ONE feels for its brilliant young attorney's skillful handling of this controversial and delicate case, (handled, it should be stated, without fee) can well be imagined, and was indicated by the long, enthusiastic applause given him at the Midwinter Banquet. That it has made legal history as well is attested by the congratulations which have poured in on him from other attorneys and for the further accolade of requests from many law schools asking for copies of his Supreme Court brief.