the news, we don't know, but congratulations from readers began to flow in, particularly from Pennsylvania, and even from the Virgin Islands, so the news must have leaked out. Some papers reported the ruling without mentioning ONE's name, and even the N. Y. TIMES put us in lower case.

The first clipping to come in the mails was from The CATHOLIC STANDARD, Washington's Archdiocesan Newspaper: "The U. S. Supreme Court reversed decisions of two circuit courts which had barred three magazines from the mails on grounds of obscenity. In the first case, a Los Angele magazine titled One, which carries with it the designation, 'The Homosexual Magazine,' had been denied use of the mails by a San Francisco court on the grounds that it contained obscene material. The Supreme Court overruled the decision, thus intimating that the magazine was not obscene according to the definition of the term established in the Roth case last June... The appeal before the Supreme Court charged that the mail ban imposed by the circuit court constituted violation of freedom of the press . . .

"HOMOSEXUAL MAG NOT OBSCENE" said the Los Angeles DAILY JOURNAL, a legal paper in a front page bit on January 20th. Two longer, earlier front page stories in the METROPOLITAN NEWS, another L. A. legal paper, almost got past

US:

"HOMOSEXUAL MAGAZINE IS NOT OBSCENE, SUPREME COURT HOLDS, High Tribunal Enters Per Curiam Ruling On Local Publication, Citing Roth Case. One, The Homosexual Magazine, won its battle to have issues transmitted through the mails in a decision of the U. S. Su-

one

preme Court, it was learned yesterday. The magazine, published in Los Angeles, deals with social, economic and personal problems of homosexuals, but there is no advocacy of homosexuality in the magazine, its attorney, Eric Julber, argued in his petition. Circulation is 10,000 in the U. S. and around the world. The high court, without hearing oral arguments, based its ruling on the petition for certiorari and reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (241) F.2d 772) which held the magazine was obscene, lewd and lascivious. The brief per curiam opinion cited an earlier decision in the Roth case (354 U. S. 476) which held that open discussion of sexual behavior and problems is part of permissible free speech, and is not necessarily obscene. Los Angeles Postmaster Otto K. Oleson had refused to transmit the October 1954 issue of the magazine, and it sued for an injunction. U. S. Dist. Judge Thurmond Clarke held the magazine was obscene and refused the injunction. He was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.'

The next day, under the heading, Supreme Court Review, Lawrence William Steinberg, member of the Beverly Hills Bar, wrote in the same paper: "In two brief but significant opinions this week the United States Supreme Court limited the power of the post master to bar from the mails materials dealing with sexual subjects.

"In one of these matters, One, Inc. v. Oleson, petitioner had sought an injunction against the postmaster's ban on its magazine, which dealt largely with the subject matter of homosexuality. Such injunction was denied in the United States district court, and in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Certiorari was sought by Eric Julber of