its administration.

It was very largely the individual attitudes of chief constables that determined how zealously or otherwise the police in a given area pursued homosexuals.

The risks of being prosecuted for this offence varied enormously from area to area. Once a prosecution was instituted, sentences varied enormously as imposed by different magistrates and judges. There were few laws which fell more capriciously on the offender, and there were unparalleled opportunities for blackmail.

Only the Federal German Republic took the same view on private adult homosexuality as Britons did.

"If we adopted the Wolfenden recommendations would bring our law into line with that of France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Spain, Greece and Austria.

"It is said that to change the law would appear to condone and encourage homosexuality. But we don't encourage adultery or Lesbianism simply because we fail to make either of them criminal offences."

The main argument against reform was that public opinion was opposed to it, or was not ready for it. But if that criteria were adopted in the past we would still be hanging men for stealing sheep and still be chaining lunatics to beds of straw.

It was frequently the duty of Government to lead and not to follow public opinion, and to do what it knew to be right. It was welcome and surprising that Church opinion supported the recommendations of the Wolfenden com-

mittee. Editorial opinion was

し

heavily in their favor.

On the other side editorially were The Daily Telegraph, Daily Sketch and "always in the vanguard of social progress, the Beaverbrook Press." (Laughter).

"I can find no evidence of any overwhelming opinion in opposition to these recommendations. I have had 70 letters in my postbag on the subject. One gentleman wrote to me to say that he advocated compulsory castration of homosexuals and offered his services." (Laughter.)

Action on the Wolfenden recommendations must imply legislative action on the main recommendations although à few of the worst features of the present law could, and should, have been mitigated before by administrative action. But so long as every homosexual act remained a criminal act the basic evils of the present law would remain.

He hoped the Home Secretary would not say that public opinion was against any change. "For a Government that wants to to make this change there is ample public support." (Shouts of "No," mostly from the Government benches.)

"Has not the time come to get rid of a law which achieves no discernible public good, which invites blackmail, causes untold misery and creates more evils than it can ever hope to eradicate? In the 'final analysis this is a matter of tolerance and common justice," concluded the speaker.

(The preceding article reprinted bere through courtesy of JUSTICE WEEKLY, Toronto, Ontario)

mattachine REVIEW

Court Voids

(News item from the WASHINGTON POST August, 1960)

Conviction In Sex

Deviation Case

A homosexual act is not a crime if performed in privacy between two consenting persons, the Municipal Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.

The judgment is the newest in a series of appeals decisions that affect the activities of the Metropolitan Police Morals Squad.

The Court reversed Munici pal Court Judge Mildred E. Reeves, who sentenced a 40year-old District man to 60 days in jail last September after convicting him of committing an indecent act.

The man was arrested by Pvt. Robert D. Arscott, who posed as a derelict from out of town and asked the man if he could stay overnight in his home. Police had been told the man had taken indecent liberties with itinerant men to whom he offered shelter.

Arscott testified the man made homosexual advances to him a few minutes after the officer arrived at his home.

In ordering the man acquit ted, the Appeals Court proclaimed a new interpretation of the District Code, which makes illegal any indecent act occurring "anywhere in the District."

The Court noted that the quoted phrase was introduced.

when Congress revised the Code several years ago, and said that formerly an indecent act was a crime only when it was "open and public.'

But "although an open or public act in the common law sense is no longer required," the Court said, "it is our opinion that the present law was not designed or intended to apply to an act committed in privacy in the presence of a single and consenting person."

The Court added: "We think it is obvious that the officer by his acts and mispresentations led appellant to believe he would consent, or at least not object, to his homosexual advances."

Nevertheless, the Court chose not to upset the conviction on grounds of entrapment.

The 3-man body apparently chose instead to broaden the legal definition in the Code. Its unanimous decision was written by Judge Andrew M. Hood.

Another significent decision was a United States Court of Appeals ruling that character testimony should be given more weight in morals cases than in other criminal trials. The Court pointed out that in such cases, character testimony is crucial because the verdict usually hinges on the word of the defendant against that of the officer.