department which passes on "obscene" literature sent through the mails. It appeared that one man, Sol Mindel, read all questionable material and decided whether it was obscene or not obscene. All ONE Magazine issue s were passed until the October, 1954, issue with the provocative title on the front: "You Can't Print It! ONE's Legal Counsel". This article by Eric Julber ("The Law of Mailable Material") was intended to explain to the readers why so many of their stories, poems, etc., had to be refused and not printed in the magazine. And it was this particular issue found to be "obsoene" and therefore "unmailable" by the Post Office. Thereafter it was a criminal offense even to mail that particular issue first class.

Mr. Julber filed a brief with Mr. Mindel. There was no action taken. He discussed the objectionable matter with him. What was objectionable? "Sappho Remembered" by Jane Dahr; "Lord Samuel and Lord Montague" (A New and Very BAB Ballad by Brother Grundy, Hollywood, 1954), and an advertisement for Der Kreis, a European homophile publication. Why? They were obscene. Why were they obscene? They just were. In "Sappho Remembered" there was the problem of an underage girl ("...only twenty and actually nearer sixteen in many essential ways of maturity") who chose to live and be in love with a Lesbian rather than marry an eligible young man. In "Lord Samuel and Lord Montague", well, read it. A bawdy poem at best, vulgar perhaps to some, very humorous to most, hardly obscene except to those blinded by homosexual prejudice. The ad for Der Kreis was another matter. A first class edition was subscribed for by one of the Post Office employees. It was received. Unfortunately someone connected with Der Kreis included pornographic pictures inserted between the leaves of the edition, which in itself was not objectionable. This type of irresponsibility is hardly something any publisher should be held responsible for. ONE was held responsible for it. The implications of this action could ruin any publication which accepts advertising in good faith. No publishers came to the defense of ONE.

Mr. Julber felt that the issue was not "obscene" – that there was nothing in it that "would arouse the lusts of

11