In the Matter of the Complaint That

BIG TABLE Magazine,
Issue No. 1, Spring 1959 mailed by

BIG TABLE, INC.
1316 N. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois

is nonmailable under 18 U. S. Code 1461.

P.O.D. Docket No. 1/150

William A. Duvall Hearing Examiner

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington 25, D.C.

INITIAL DECISION OF HEARING EXAMINER

On or about March 18, 1959, Big Table, Incorporated, 1316 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, the Mailer in this proceeding, deposited for mailing in the Chicago Post Office several hundred copies of its publication Big Table 1. At the same time the Mailer filed application on Post Office Department Form No. 3501 for second-class mailing privileges for its publication.

On Form No. 3501 there are numerous blanks in which the applicant is supposed to submit information giving answers to certain questions. One of the questions has to do with the number of subscriptions for the magazine. This particular blank was not filled in by the applicant at the time the application was filed and so the application was held in the Chicago office pending the receipt of the required information. In the meantime, the postmaster at Chicago entertained doubt as to the mailability of the publication and on April 3, 1959, a copy was transmitted to the Director of the Division of Postal Services for a ruling as to its mailability. The Director of the Postal Services Division referred the copy of the publication to the General Counsel with a request for the legal opinion of the latter official as to its mailability.

On April 30, 1959, a notice of hearing with respect to the mailability of the magazine was sent from the General Counsel to the postmaster at Chicago, to be forwarded by the postmaster to the Mailer. On the application for second-class mailing privileges the Mailer had listed two addresses, but when service of the notice of hearing was attempted at one address the Mailer could not be contacted. The notice of hearing was then returned to the Main Chicago Post Office and was sent to the other address, at which service was had on May 14, 1959. The notice of hearing specified that the hearing was to be held on June 4, 1959, in Washington, D. C. At the hearing the Mailer was represented by counsel and its president. Counsel for both parties participated in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses and counsel for both parties made oral proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and submitted reasons in support thereof.

In its answer the Mailer denied the allegations in the complaint, and in addition to these denials alleged a number of matters in the nature of affirmative defenses. These matters were taken up individually and discussed in detail and the motions to dismiss predicated on them were denied for the reasons stated at pages 3 to 24 of the transcript of the hearing. I have reviewed these rulings and I adhere to each of them.

Counsel for the Department then proceeded to make an oral opening statement, at the conclusion of which counsel for the mailer made a motion to strike certain portions of the opening statement. Objection was taken by counsel for the Mailer to statements by counsel for the Department that the magazine has no literary merit and that it is obscene and filthy and has no redeeming social value. This motion was contingent upon the Department's producing independent evidence as to those matters. Of course, the statements of counsel in the opening statement do not constitute evidence and are not regarded as such. However, since the publication in question was introduced into evidence, and since it is the best evidence as to its character, I deny the motion to strike.

The Department proceeded with the presentation of its case which consisted of the testimony of Mr. Joseph F. Kozielec who is an employee in the Classification Section of the Chicago post office. It was Mr. Kozielec who handled the application for second-class mailing privileges submitted by the applicant and it was Mr. Kozielec who on May 14, 1959, served upon counsel for the Mailer the formal notice of hearing. Counsel for the Government introduced as Department Exhibit A a copy of Big Table 1. There was also received in evidence in behalf of the Department, an exhibit identified as Department Exhibits B-1 thru B-4, consisting in the main of a statement by Mr. August Derleth, Director, Arkham House, Publishers, Sauk City, Wisconsin, and a biographical statement showing his background and qualifications. The statement of Mr. Derleth is attached hereto as Appendix A. Upon the receipt in evidence of these exhibits the Department rested its case.

The first witness in behalf of the Mailer was the president, publisher and editor of Big Table magazine, Mr. Paul Carroll. Mr. Carroll was graduated from the University of Chicago in 1952 with a Masters Degree in English literature. He has, among other qualifications, been a teacher at Notre Dame University, the University of Chicago and Loyola University, he has been invited to read at various universities and he has had published a translation of St. Jerome's letters in book form and a number of his poems have been published in various periodicals.

Mr. Carroll's testimony will be found at pages 40 thru 114 and 177 thru 181 of the transcript of the hearing. Mr. Carroll testified, in substance, that Big Table 1 is an attempt to publish works which reflect a new movement in contemporary American letters. Mr. Carroll said that his publication contains works which are serious contributions to the contemporary literary scene and that it was his judgment that the material should be made public and available for reading.

At this point it may be well to give a short description of the format of the publication in question. The publication is approximately the average size of the ordinary paper-back, so-called, pocket book and consists of 152 pages of text. The outside front cover contains the name of the publication plus the table of contents of this first issue. Inside the front and back covers and for several pages at the front and back of the publication are various advertisements. After the advertisements in the front is a restatement of the table of contents followed by "Notes on Contributors" and an editorial by Irving Rosenthal who at the time of the publication of Big Table 1 was its editor. The first article in the publication starts at page 7 and is entitled "Old Angel Midnight" by Jack Kerouac. Beginning at page 43 is an article entitled "Further Sorrows of Priapus" by Edward Dahlberg. Following this, beginning at page 63 is a poem by Edward Dahlberg entitled "The Garment of Ra." Next, beginning on page 79 is an item entitled "Ten Episodes From Naked Lunch " by William S. Burroughs. The last contributor in the publication is Gregory Corso whose three poems entitled "Power," "Army," and "Police" appear at pages 138 thru 152.

In response to questions by counsel, Mr. Carroll indicated the reasons for the inclusion in the publication of material by each of the authors.

With respect to Kerouac, it was stated that his work was included because of the specific literary technique employed by the writer and, also, the inclusion constituted an attempt at a broader description of Kerouac's place in American literature. Kerouac, according to Mr. Carroll, carries on the "stream of consciousness" technique employed by James Joyce in "Ulysses." He regards Mr. Kerouac's work as a continuation of a distinguished tradition in American letters.

Dahlberg was included in the publication for the reason that, in Mr. Carroll's view, he is a very distinguished and powerful writer, and has been recognized as such for twenty years.

Concerning Burroughs, Mr. Carroll said that he regarded him as the inheritor and continuer of two great traditions - one, the tradition of the outlaw; and the other, the tradition of the social satirist. Describing the first tradition, Mr. Carroll said that it is an attempt to find a meaning for ones existence outside the accepted mores - sociological, philosophical and religious - of the existing society. The witness stated that in his satire Burroughs criticizes a country in which there are no Gods and a country that is devoted to a language that is becoming increasingly inarticulate.

The witness stated in his opinion Gregory Corso is recognized as a significant contributor to the contemporary poetry scene. He stated that Corso's position as a poet is critically debatable, but that he is a serious and responsible writer.

Concerning all contributors to this issue of the publication, Mr. Carroll indicated that he regards them as writers of serious literary intent, and each of them, in his opinion, poses sociological and philosophical questions of significance.

It was pointed out to Mr. Carroll that there is repeated usage of certain terms that were referred to at the hearing as four-letter words or anglo-saxon words. Mr. Carroll testified that he was aware of the presence of these words at the time the material was selected for inclusion in the publication, but that he felt that the use of these words by Kerouac and Burroughs was germane to the serious artistic purpose of these writers. Mr. Carroll testified that in composing the magazine it was the intent of the publishers to appeal to a sophisticated audience with a serious interest in works of literature, and to persons who read with the intention of obtaining not merely entertainment but, also, of finding deeper insight into his own condition and the life around him.

The publication is distributed through two national distributors. It was Mr. Carroll's belief that these distributors furnish the publication only to certain book stores where publications of this character are available. It was his opinion, at first, that no copies of the publication were furnished by the distributors to newsstands for general distribution to the public. Mr. Carroll later modified this view to indicate that he believed there might be some distribution to certain newsstands on a selective basis, for example, newsstands which are located in areas in which the distributors believe that the people living or working nearby might be inclined to buy a magazine of serious literature and serious intent. Mr. Carroll testified that he did not think that any wider distribution was given to the publication, but as to this point he was not certain.

Sales of the publication are solicited by means of advertisements in various publications, examples of which are the Village Voice, a weekly newspaper published in Greenwich Village, New York City (Mailer's Exhibit No. 1-A), the London Magazine, a monthly review of literature published in London, England (Mailer's Exhibit No. 1-B), and the Evergreen Review published by Grove Press, Inc., New York, New York (Mailer's Exhibit No. 1-C). There was some indication that the publication has been advertised also in the New York Times, but there was no proof as to this point. Mr. Carroll stated that he hoped that the magazine had been advertised in the Times.

The next witness for the Mailer was Mr. Hoke Norris, who is a literary critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Chicago. Mr. Norris testified that in his view the contents of Big Table 1 are representative of a serious, valid international literary movement. He stated that it was his opinion that the writers Corso, Kerouac and Burroughs are serious writers and that their works are of some social importance. Mr. Norris indicated that in his opinion these writers feel that they have something to say, and that they want to say it as effectively as possible. With respect to the four-letter words which are used in the articles by Burroughs and Kerouac, Mr. Norris testified that he thought they were germane to the serious purposes of these writers. He said that it would be ridiculous in the context of these works to substitute euphemistic synonyms in place of the four-letter words.

Concerning Kerouac, Mr. Norris felt that his writings were traceable more to Gertrude Stein than to James Joyce. He said that while he respected Kerouac's intent, and to some extent his ability, it is his literary judgment that Kerouac's effort "didn't quite come off."

With respect to Burroughs' article Mr. Norris stated that this piece appeared to him to be rather like the artistic writing that a narcotic addict would do, containing wild figures, disjointed associations between objects and words, sentences, paragraphs and places.

In Mr. Norris' view, the poems by Corso are the best writings in the book. He feels that Mr. Corso is a poet with a good grasp of the language, a feeling for the good sharp figures and a great deal of wit.

Insofar as Mr. Dahlberg is concerned, Mr. Norris testified that he "couldn't quite figure out what he was about." Mr. Norris testified that, while he did regard the publication as a whole as a serious literary effort, in his review of it which was published in the Chicago Sun-Times his literary criticism of the book was adverse and unfavorable and that he did not advise his readers to read it. Mr. Norris testified that it is his opinion that his adverse critical appraisal of the publication is representative of a majority of literary critics with whom he is acquainted and whose criticisms he has read.

The last witness who appeared in behalf of the Mailer was Mr. Hans W. Mattick, a sociologist, psychologist and criminologist. The testimony of Mr. Mattick was confined to his comments relating to the excerpts from the "Naked Lunch" by Burroughs. He testified that dope addiction is a serious sociological problem in this country and that this article is an excellent example of the fantasy life of the addict and, as such, makes a significant contribution to our understanding of some portion of the addict's problem. Concerning the use of the four-letter words in this article it was Mr. Mattick's view that they are essential components in delineating the style of life of an addict in a true and clear fashion and that without such language the reader would get a false image of the nature and life of a narcotics addict. He stated that these words are used as expletives and that their function is to express hostility. Mr. Mattick agreed that the substance of his testimony is that in his opinion the article by Burroughs would have its primary value for people who are narcotics addicts or for people who are treating addicts. Mr. Mattick was not qualified as a literary critic, and his testimony did not go to the literary merit of the publication.

At the conclusion of the testimony of the witnesses, counsel for the Mailer offered into evidence letters from twenty-four people throughout the United States. The purpose of the offer was to show the views of these individuals with respect to the literary and social value of Big Table 1. At the hearing I stated that these exhibits would be received in evidence insofar as they contained the views of competent critics as to the literary value or merit of the publication, but that insofar as they might contain any statements which purported to indicate the views of the writers with respect to the tendency the reading of the publication might have to arouse the prurient interest of the average reader they would not be received and would not be considered by me. In order that the parties may be advised as to the portions of these letters which are received in evidence, these portions are contained in an addendum hereto identified as Appendix B to this decision. ^1/ I have read all of these comments, and the perusal of them substantiates the testimony by Mr. Norris that, while critical appraisal of this publication varies, the majority of such critical opinion with respect to the publication is adverse.

In analyzing the comments of these individuals it must be pointed out that their qualifications as literary critics, in some instances, may be open to considerable question. In making this statement I refer specifically to the two ordained ministers who commented favorably, in the main, with respect to the publication.

The next fact that stands out as one reads these comments is that most of them relate generally to the serious intent of the authors and have little or nothing to say about the literary merit of the particular articles which comprise the publication. These comments, therefore, are of no aid when one is confronted with the necessity of basing a decision upon the material that is within the covers of Big Table 1. In making this statement I refer particularly to the comments by Messrs. Creeley, Aronowitz, Laughlin, Golffing, Butler and May.

Some of the persons whose comments were submitted are members of the cult or adherents to the so-called literary movement of the beat generation. Most of the comments of these individuals are very favorable to the publication. This is certainly to be expected. While there may be others in this group whom I have not identified as being members of the group, I refer now to Messrs. Mailer, Ginsberg, Ferlinghetti and Jones. Because of their intense interest in and, in some cases, because of their authorship of writings of the character of those contained in Big Table 1, great caution must be exercised in assigning weight to their endorsements.

There are some of these twenty-four individuals whose criticism is favorable to some of the writers and adverse with respect to others. For example, Mr. Hudson speaks favorably of the article by Burroughs and unfavorably with respect to the remainder of the magazine; Mr. Kenner speaks favorably with respect to the article by Burroughs and unfavorably with respect to the article by Kerouac; Mr. Schleifer speaks favorably of Burroughs and Dahlberg and adversely of Kerouac and Corso; Mr. Ciardi regards the work as being of substantial artistic accomplishment, but he says that he must confess to some personal disagreement of aesthetic principle here and there in the writing; and as indicated above Mr. Butler did support the view that the writers whose works are contained in Big Table 1 are of serious literary content. It is my feeling that the comment of Mr. Burke indicates that he feels that there is certain literary merit to the publication but that the articles contain language which to him seems to be extreme. Nevertheless, he did state that he can not pretend to be in complete accord with the editors as to the value of the literature in their first issue. Mr. Taylor speaks favorably with respect to Burroughs, and in quite a different way concerning Kerouac.

Letters from three gentlemen contained nothing on the subject of their views as to the literary merit of the publication but expressed their views on the legal question as to whether the publication is obscene. These gentlemen are Messrs. Miller, Barzun and Dr. Piers. The letters containing the views of these gentlemen are not received in evidence but will be permitted to accompany the record as rejected exhibits.

There remain Mr. Parkinson, who commented adversely as to the literary merit of Mr. Burroughs' work and made no comment with respect to the remainder of the magazine, and Messrs. West and Trilling, whose comments were adversely critical as to the literary merit of the entire publication.

Exhibit No. 3 offered on behalf of the Mailer consisted of a number of articles on the philosophy and literature of the beat generation, which primarily consist of the views of the various writers on the stature of Jack Kerouac as a serious writer. These comments are of a general nature and do not relate to the material contained in Big Table 1. The sub-exhibits comprising Exhibit 3 are listed as follows:

3-1. book, "The Beat Generation and the Angry Young Men," edited by Gene Feldman and Max Gartenberg, published by the Citadel Press (1958), see:

(a) Introduction, pp. 9-18

(b) "Disengagement: the art of the beat generation" by Kenneth Rexroth, pp. 323-38

(c) "The White Negro," by Norman Mailer, pp. 342-63

3-2. Chicago Review, Spring 1958, see:

(a) "The Origins of Joy in Poetry," by Jack Kerouac, p. 3

(b) "Note on Poetry in San Francisco," by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, p. 4

3-3. Evergreen Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, see: "San Francisco Letter," by Kenneth Rexroth, pp. 5-14.

3-4. article, "The Philosophy of the Beat Generation," by John Clellon Holmes, Esquire, February, 1958, pp. 35-38

3-5. article, "Kerouac's Beat Generation," by Ralph Gleason, Saturday Review, Jan. 11, 1958, p. 75

3-6. article, "The Origins of the Beat Generation," by Jack Kerouac, based on 1958 address to Brandeis University seminar, Playboy, June, 1959, pp. 31-32, 42, 79

3-7. excerpts, book review of "On the Road," by Jack Kerouac; reviewed by Gilbert Milstein, N.Y. Times, Sept. 5, 1957, p. 27, col. 2.

3-8. article, "King of the Beats," by Seymour Krim, the Commonweal, Jan. 2, 1959, pp. 359-60.

3-9. article, "California's Young Writers, Angry and Otherwise," by Basil Ross, Library Journal, June 15, 1958, pp. 1850-54.

Because the comments in these articles do not relate to the specific issues involved in this proceeding, they are not received in evidence, but they are permitted to accompany the record as rejected exhibits.

The last exhibit offered at the hearing in behalf of the Mailer was an excerpt from the testimony in P.O.D. Docket Nos. M-16 and 18, involving the book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by D. H. Lawrence. The effect of this testimony would be to attempt to establish contemporary community standards as to the acceptability of certain language. This type of proof is not appropriate in a hearing of this character. Klaw v. Schaffer , 151 Fed. Supp. 534; Tourlanes Publishing Company v. Summerfield, et al. , Civil Action No. 3635-55, November 4, 1955, affirmed 231 F.(2d) 773; United States v. Two Obscene Books , 99 F. Supp. 760; and Rosen v. United States , 161 U. S. 29.

In this case it must be determined whether the magazine Big Table 1 is obscene, whether it is filthy, or whether it is both.

In Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, obscene material was defined as "material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest." (id., 487) In footnote 20 to this decision the Court stated "We perceive no significant difference between the meaning of obscenity developed in the case law and the definition of the A. L. I., Model Penal Code, 207.10(2) (Tent. Draft No. 6, 1957), viz .:

". . . A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters ...."

Restating the definition of obscenity the Court said at page 489 that the standard for judging whether material is obscene is "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."

Counsel for the Mailer laid great stress on the statement of the Court in the Roth case, page 484, that "All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties ***." It was counsel's insistence that the ideas contained in Big Table 1 are of social significance and that therefore under the last quoted excerpt from the Court's decision in the Roth case the publication is within the protection given by the Constitution to utterances by speech and press.

Counsel failed to advert to the remainder of the sentence of which the last quoted excerpt is but a portion. The complete sentence states that all ideas having even slight social importance are within the protection of the Bill of Rights, " unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. " (emphasis supplied). There is nothing in the Roth case, and there is elsewhere no basis for believing that the Court intended that any less weight should be assigned to the last part of the sentence than to the first part. Indeed, the qualification contained in the last portion of the sentence is necessary in order that the first part may appear in its true perspective.

In a footnote to this statement the Court cited United States v. Harris , 347 U. S. 612, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act and held that it does not violate the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Also cited under this statement was the case of Breard v. Alexandria , 341 U. S. 622, in which was upheld the validity of a municipal ordinance forbidding the practice of going in and upon private residences for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale of goods, without prior consent of the owners or occupants. In this case, the Court said: "The First and Fourteenth Amendments have never been treated as absolutes (citing cases). ^2/ Freedom of speech or press does not mean that one can talk or distribute when, where and how one chooses. Rights other than those of the advocates are involved. By adjustment of rights we can live with full liberty of expression and an orderly life."

Under one of the definitions of obscenity given by the Court in the Roth case, in footnote 26 appearing on page 489, the Court cited a number of decisions with approval and indicated that in those cases the essence of its just-announced standard had been followed. One of these cases, and one on which counsel for the Mailer relied heavily, was the case of United States v. One Book Entitled "Ulysses" by James Joyce , 72 F.(2d) 705. In this case the Court said "While any construction of the statute that will fit all cases is difficult, we believe that the proper test of whether a given book is obscene is its dominant effect. In applying this test, relevancy of the objectionable parts to the theme, the established reputation of the work in the estimation of approved critics, if the book is modern, and the verdict of the past, if it is ancient, are persuasive pieces of evidence; for works of art are not likely to sustain a high position with no better warrant for their existence than their obscene content." Another case cited in footnote 26 to the Roth decision upon which great reliance was placed by counsel for the Mailer in this case is United States v. Levine , 83 F.(2d) 156, in which the court stated that "The standard must be the likelihood that the work will so much arouse the salacity of the reader to whom it is sent as to outweigh any literary, scientific, or other merits it may have in that reader's hands; of this matter the jury is the arbiter."

Concerning the obscenity of this publication, if that term is confined to its connotations of sex and a prurient interest therein, it is my view that this publication would not arouse the interest of the average reader in sex, and I so find. On the other hand, if, as suggested in footnote 20 to the decision in the Roth case, the Supreme Court gave its approval to that portion of the American Law Institutes Model Penal Code definition which says that a thing is obscene "if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters" as nudity, sex or excretion, [and here, again, the Court was not engaging in useless chit-chat] this publication most assuredly is obscene and I so find.

In making this finding I have followed the criteria established in the Ulysses and Levine cases, supra , because the decided weight of opinion of qualified, unbiased critics is that there is little, if any, literary merit to this publication. Even the Mailer conceded with respect to the Dahlberg article that "it is admittedly not great literature." Tr. 148) Some, if not most. of the Kerouac article can be classified only as printed characters on a page. It is, in many cases, a series of letters or groups of letters interspersed with words that mention the private parts of the anatomy, bodily functions and various types of sexual perversions and aberrations expressed in terms of the lowest vehicle that can be used to convey their meanings. While there is more of a narrative, better description and intelligible satire in the article by Burroughs it is also plain to the reader that the vile, vulgar and filthy language used far outweighs whatever literary merit there may be to the article. These articles set the tone of the entire publication and establish its dominant characteristic.

This action was, of course, brought under Section 1461 of Title 18, U. S. Code which was amended by the Act of March 4, 1909, Chapter 321, 35 Stat. 1088, 1129 by the addition of the words "and every filthy," to describe material the transmission of which the Congress deemed should not be carried in the mails, and the mailing of which was made punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

In United States v. Limehouse , 285 U. S. 424, 426, Mr. Justice Brandeis speaking for the Court said: "The lower court failed to recognize that the amendment introduced, not merely a word, but a phrase. Disregarding the collocation of the words, it treated the amended clause as if it had read 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy'; and then, applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis , gave to 'filthy' the meaning attributed in the Swearingen case to the words 'obscene, lewd or lascivious.' Thus, the court emptied the amendment of all meaning. We think that it is more natural reading of the clause to hold that by the amendment Congress added a new class of unmailable matter, - the filthy." Nothing in the Roth case, or in any other case so far as I am aware, had disturbed the holding in this case. Mr. Justice Brandeis also said of the matter which was then under consideration that "they were coarse, vulgar, disgusting, indecent; and unquestionably filthy within the popular meaning of that term." Having in mind this definition of filthy, I find that the publication Big Table 1 is filthy.

These findings and conclusions encompass the adoption of the proposed findings and conclusions of the Complainant.

A word or two should be said with respect to the proposed findings and conclusions of the Mailer. It is urged that because the writers are of serious intent the publication may not be regarded as obscene or filthy. Let it be conceded that these writers intended to produce meritorious literature. The question here is what, in fact, have they produced. The weight of the opinion of the approved critics - even those whose views were solicited by the publisher - is that the writings are not meritorious.

It is urged that because the writings contain ideas of social and philosophical importance the publication may not be held to be obscene or filthy. It should be clearly understood that there is nothing in this initial decision which purports to be critical of proper discussion of any idea presented in Big Table 1. Not all of the ideas are condoned but they are recognized as elements of life as it is lived by certain segments of the population. The conclusion appears to be inescapable, however, that the manner of presentation of these ideas is offensive and repugnant to the "average conscience of the time." Roth v. Goldman , 172 F.(2d) 788, 794-795 (concurrence) [cited in footnote 26, Roth v. United States , supra .] Counsel for the Mailer, in his closing argument, conceded that "the language used in Big Table 1 may conceivably be beyond customary limits of candor."

Finally, it was urged that because the publication was designed to reach such a small audience that its dissemination could do no harm. Whatever may be the composition of the contents of the magazine, its methods of distribution and sale belie the proposition that it is intended to be read only by a limited group. It is advertised in literary reviews and in a weekly newspaper of national distribution; the publisher hopes it is advertised in the New York Times, the readership of which is certainly not confined to literati or readers of avant-garde literature; and the publisher hopes that his venture will be financially so successful that he may pay salaries to himself and his staff; it is distributed by two national distributors; and it is available in book stores and, certainly some selected newsstands and, very likely, many others. These facts, all of which appear in the record, simply are not consistent with the asserted design to reach only a small, sophisticated audience - even if this were a valid argument, which it is not.

Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, I conclude that as a matter of law Big Table 1 is nonmailable under the provisions of Section 1461, Title 18, United States Code.

/s/

APPENDIX A

I, August Derleth, of Sauk City, Wisconsin, being duly sworn, do state that as literary editor of The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin, for the past eighteen years, as editor of Arkham House: Publishers for the past twenty years; and as the author of 85 published books, some of which have a modest literary merit, I believe I have at least a minor claim to some knowledge of what constitutes a work of literary merit.

In my capacity as literary editor of a daily paper, I obtained and read a copy of BIG TABLE 1. I read this issue with particular attention because advance publicity contending that the exclusion of this material from a well-known established literary quarterly had led me to believe that it might be a) important as a contribution to literature; b) the object of a regrettable tendency toward censorship, which I tend both as an author and a gregarious reader to deplore, and about which I have published several columns in the newspaper of which I am literary editor, usually in vigorous opposition.

I am sorry to have to say that in my considered opinion the overwhelming majority of the material in BIG TABLE 1 has no literary merit whatsoever. I have here specific reference to the material titled "Old Angel Midnight," by Jack Kerouac; "Ten Episodes from 'Naked Lunch'," by William S. Burroughs; and "Three Poems," by Gregory Corso, which are for the most part undisciplined prose, far more akin to the early work of experimental adolescents than to anything of literary merit. Though two contributions by Edward Dahlberg, "Further Sorrows of Priapus," and "The Garment of Ra," are works of some merit, they occupy so few pages in the magazine as to be negligible in the issue, and do not represent an important contribution to literature.

APPENDIX B

Harold Taylor - President of Sarah Lawrence College.

Burroughs - "a writer of serious intent"; "he manages to make
                      the clinical details of almost every aspect of
                      human experience fairly repulsive, and often very
                      funny."

Kerouac     - "no doubt of his literary intent"; "he is so
                      pretentiously literary and so short of imagination
                      in carrying out his intention that I would question
                      whether it is important enough as literature to be
                      included in a magazine as serious as yours. There
                      are traces of Ted Roethke and second-hand James
                      Joyce but very little of the qualities of mind
                      which makes their work so interesting and
                      important."

John Ciardi - Rutgers University - President, College English
          Association.

Contents of Big Table 1 are "entirely serious in their search
for true values, very deeply concerned with matters of great
social importance." "I may confess to some personal
disagreements of aesthetic principle here and there in the
writing, but in general it must certainly be recorded as work
of substantial artistic accomplishment."

Norman Mailer - Author of "The Naked and the Dead."

"The 'Ten Episodes From Naked Lunch' by William Burroughs are,
I believe, the work of a writer with exceptional talents.
Burroughs creates the atmosphere of his work by the use of a
disciplined chiseled style in which every word seems essential.
That this style, lithe, alert to the cadence and nuance of
every sound, is still able to create for us the wild,
disoriented and fantasy-filled world of the junk addict is part
of its considerable achievement. Burroughs is a literary
phenomenon almost unique in the history of letters.

"I could go on to talk about the value of this selection as a
document, for it offers invaluable insight (not without its
medical uses) into the mind of the addict, but I would prefer
to offer instead what is for me, the more powerful argument:
Burroughs may prove to be one of the most important American
writers to be printed since the War.

"Much the same may be said for Kerouac, and his piece Old Angel
Midnight. Kerouac is undoubtedly one of the major young
writers in this country, and any passage of experimental work
by him is entitled to the dignity of open publication."

Allen Ginsberg -

To Whom It May Concern:

My qualifications as a witness: I have a B.A. from
Columbia College. I have written book reviews for the New York
Herald Tribune, Newsweek Magazine, The Village Voice. I am the
author of a book of poems, "Howl", published by City Lights Co.
in San Francisco. I have taught a class in creative writing
for San Francisco State College. I have given poetry readings
--readings of my own and others' poetry--at Oxford (England),
Harvard, Yale, Columbia, New York University, Brooklyn College,
Muhlenberg College, University of California, San Francisco
State College. My poetry has been translated and published or
broadcast in Germany, France, Sweden, and Chile. My German
publisher is Limes Verlag, my French translator is Alan
Bosquet, who consulted me in the preparation of an anthology of
young American writers which he is assembling for European use
in cooperation with the U.S. Information Service. I have
published poetry in various U.S. magazines including The
Chicago Review, Partisan Review, Evergreen Review, The Black
Mountain Review.

In my opinion the writers Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs are the most important prose geniuses to have emerged in America since the last War. In the case of Kerouac, this is not only my own opinion, but also the opinion of many local and international critics and journalists. He is considered in France and Germany as certainly one of the most exciting manifestations of U.S. literary temprament that they have heard of. Many articles, in almost all countries of Europe and South America, have been devoted to a description of his writing. Mr. Burroughs' work is less well known, since very little of it has been published, in fact, the section of Naked Lunch published in the issue of Big Table under consideration is the first sizeable chunk of his prose printed in the last 8 years. I think it is the most significant piece of social criticism that has been published in America in this century and will ultimately rank, in both content and prose style, with the work of Dean Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels and A Modest Proposal .

The question under discussion is whether the works Old Angel Midnight and Naked Lunch are too obscene to send thru the mail. I have made the above paragraph of generalization about their literary work in order to emphasize that a censorship of their work will not be greeted with indifference by literary figures here in the U.S. or abroad.

The works are in my opinion not obscene at all. Both are in their mood and conscious intention religious testaments. Both are concerned with an illumination of consciousness wherein the Divinity of the soul is revealed. The method of composition of both works is similar: a transcription of the inmost & deepest fantasies and insights of the authors, without care for anything but the truth of the reporting. This is an attempt of great value and could only be attempted by writers of great human virtue. It is in the tradition of great Democratic documents, statements of individual realities, confessions and insights, that includes the work of Thoreau and Whitman. This literary tradition is the very life-blood of the individualistic spirit in this country and any attempt to suppress it by the present government or any of its agencies would be to me a sign of degeneracy of the Soul of this nation that has taken place since its founders first agreed that individuals should be encouraged to explore the divinity within themselves. One must re-read Thoreau, Emerson and Whitman to understand that they felt that this was exactly the ideal purpose of America. It is a virtue that has been much overlooked in recent times, and may even now seem absurd to the materialistic modern mind.

The specific works in question, Old Angel Midnight and Naked Lunch are the most advanced pieces of prose composition that the two authors have penned.

In Kerouac's case the principle of spontaneous unrevised composition (similar to experiments in prose by Joyce & Gertrude Stein) has been carried out to its necessary and logical conclusion. Each section of the work - (49 sections are published here) - is the result of a short session of writing, in which the author puts down on the page all the actual thoughts in his mind, uncensored and in the rhythm in which they naturally come. This is an experiment in truthful meditation. It is a sample of a man's actual mind. If the actual truthful mind of a man cannot be printed in America, as set forth after years of competent craftsmanship and practiced art, then it speaks less well for the official laws of the land than for the natural laws of the mind. If a man cannot communicate his mind thru the mail than perhaps it ought to be the mail that is to be stopped, rather than the mind.

The grievance of censorship here is made more unendurable by the realization of the religious nature of Kerouac's meditations. The prose is primarily an exposition of the fact that an examination of the contents of his mind leads him to an understanding of a Divinity, an Enlightened One, beneath his consciousness. This is not in the province of the officials of this government to censor nor would they presumably censor it if they understood what he was getting at. The officials would probably rejoice and be happy to grant second class mailing privileges. And deliver the magazine with joy. Kerouac's piece is called Old Angel Midnight , and that's what it's about, an angel in the midnight of the meditative mind.

I should add that I consider it his most advanced piece of writing technically , i.e. it most closely realizes his desire for a near science of prose to transcribe the minutest variations of inner thought. This is a contribution to American prose which later writers will I think come to value and learn from. It is a sample of an important prose method. Its value is, from this point of view, too great to even think of worrying about its obscenity.

We have very similar considerations to take into account when examining W.S. Burroughs's Naked Lunch . It is his Word (the title of one section)--his revelation of his actual mind. He is a man who is well educated, who has travelled much, and suffered much, and in his advancing years (he is over 40) he has come to understand certain things about himself and society which he wished to express. Thus the title Naked Lunch . The truth, his truth, is here naked. One of the main insights of this portion of the mss. is into the nature of the mass brainwash of individuality that has come about in our century thru scientific technique. (See section 7.) That a prose exposition on this subject of brainwash should itself be censored by an arm of the government is to me proof of the urgency of his message, and the advisability of its being left free to be disseminated to the public thru the mails. What we have in question here, to my mind, is none other than the subtle spread of a mental dictatorship in America which inhibits free individualistic expression of insight into its nature. To censor Naked Lunch in the mail will be an act of political censorship, in its significance.

Burroughs' main prose technique is what might be called a "Routine,"--this is a section of fantasy wherein he takes an idea and carries it out to illogical dreamlike limits. In the course of such mental freedom he often arrives at very useful and entertaining insights. Thus he has described imaginary political parties, brainwash technicians, presidents with obscene dope habits, a whole class of spiritual police, exaggerated nightmare rock and roll riots, etc. etc. These all seem to me to be valid artistic paraphrases of our present human situation. He speaks at length of Junk, or heroin, both literally and as a symbol of habitual dependence on materialistic ideas of selfhood, or false worldly ego. Thus it is quite appropriate for him to extend this fantasy to describe an unnamed symbolic president as a man hung up on symbolic Junk, with all appropriate psychological and sexual abnormalities. I mention this since there I understood that this passage (Section 3) was called into question. I see no reason why an author need hesitate to examine the possibility of a government and its officials being hung up or addicted to false psychological and spiritual conceptions of the world. For that is what that passage means. And censorship of that passage would be treason to democracy.

The whole book Naked Lunch , and the passages printed in Big Table , are very fine, perceptive, dry, comic, nightmarish prose. The writing sometimes approaches a kind of prose-poetry which is found in 20'th Century French writing--notably St. John Perse. To this extent it is also an innovation in American style. It is high class literature, and shouldn't be classed with girlie magazine worries by the P.O. Dept. Why it was ever called into question at all I cannot imagine, except it be the literary incompetence of those officials of the P.O. Dept. to judge such matters. It should certainly be taken out of the hands of people who would censor it; they should be told to leave true Art alone. The artist has enough trouble without having to battle the Govt.

Anthony West - Author and New Yorker book critic.

"patently a serious literary magazine." "I do not think that any contributor to your first issue has succeeded in reaching the level of great or lasting literature, and I feel that some of them are exploring what I am convinced are blind alleys. But I am quite sure that everything in the magazine is the fruit of a serious attempt to achieve what has always been, and always will be, the final literary purpose - that is to tell the truth of man's vital experience as the writer knows it." "I do not believe that any contribution can be read from its beginning through to its end without ... that the appeal made is serious, thoughtful."

Hugh Kenner - Professor of English and Chairman of the Department, University of California at Santa Barbara.

"I should expect the average adult to find the Kerouac excerpt dull (as I do), if not unreadable.

"The Burroughs piece is a great deal more interesting. It is the only part of the magazine a susceptible person is likely to read through. It has, for one thing, a propulsive narrative content." "Mr. Burroughs, a writer of very considerable talent, figures neither as a pimp nor as a sideshow barker. He presents, with an impressive command of the resources of language, a vision of a disordered world which the reader is free to inspect but which the energies of the narrative certainly do not invite him to participate. It is, from beginning to end, an unpleasant world, and there is no attempt to pretend that it is anything else. In the insight it affords into the mechanisms of a human depravity which undoubtably exists in the very shadow of the Post Office Building, it seems to me of potential social importance. One arises from its perusal impressed by the author's virtuosity, and I believe enlightened by what has been set before me, but certainly untempted to try for oneself the experiences described. The excitement of Mr. Burroughs' writing is confined to the written page, where literary excitement belongs. The pornographer not only has different aims, but he works, as one may discover from a little inspection of books and periodicals that are mailed all over the country and freely sold in every large city, not be explicit ruthless presentation of sensations and experiences, not by any attempt to discover their verbal equivalent, but by sketching in the conditions of a lustful revery which the reader is encouraged to complete for himself. Mr. Burroughs by contrast works like a physician conducting a fecal analysis, though the material on which he is conducting his analysis is human emotion. The emotion is certainly present in the writing, as the fecal specimen is present on the physician's slide, but like the specimen it is present because its presence is necessary to Mr. Burroughs' essentially serious purposes. In bringing technical resources developed in the past fifty years to a tradition dignified by De Quincy's "Confessions of an Opium Eater," Mr. Burroughs is extending the resources of literature. That the direction in which he is extending them is not one that especially interests me is neither here nor there."

Robert Creeley - Editor of the Black Mountain Review .

"Jack Kerouac's OLD ANGEL MIDNIGHT makes use of a device very similar to that which Mr. Joyce used in ULYSSES." "Again the terms of the literary work have been forgotten -- terms most clear to one who attempts to understand them; and only the 'four letter words' so to speak noted." "My respect for Mr. Burroughs, as for Mr. Kerouac, is grounded on a considerable knowledge of his work since I have had the good fortune to read a great part of the manuscript of NAKED LUNCH, from which these sections printed in BIG TABLE #1 are taken. I find him a literary artist of great ability, and I look upon his work as exploring, with great literary skill and acumen, social problems and areas which are as real in our society as any I am aware of. It is surely not the intention of either man to argue the rightness or wrongness of what their research has in each case discovered;"

Robert W. Spike - Congregational Minister - Secretary, Board of Home Missions of the Congregational and Christian Churches.

"It is my opinion that the first issue of BIG TABLE contains significant articles of literary interest." "This magazine in its format is obviously designed for a special group of literate people who understand the nature of contemporary letters and the struggle to relate the agonies of modern life with feeling and meaning. This magazine, while it does use language that would be offensive to an indiscriminate distribution to young people, is in no way beamed in their direction."

Alfred G. Aronowitz - Author, New York Post reporter.

"I can report unqualifiedly that the contents of Big Table 1, including 'Old Angel Midnight' and 'Ten Episodes from Naked Lunch,' are intended as serious works of art and that any attempt to classify them as otherwise is pure boorishness and/or ignorance. The Beat Generation is a serious literary movement of tremendous social significance and Big Table should be commended, rather than suppressed, for its initiative in bringing these important documents to public attention."

Randolph H. Hudson - Acting Instructor, Department of English, Stanford University. Comments only on "Naked Lunch."

"In this article I understated my real opinions. My purpose was to get the students to thinking, not to get them to accept my own opinion on the subject. I am not opposed to censorship as such, but I do feel that the banning of Big Table is quite wrong. I have always felt that, for one example, the old Confidential did immeasurable damage, and I was glad to see Pat Brown, then Attorney-General of California, take bold action against this publication. I cannot believe, however, that 'Naked Lunch' will do any social damage. (Of the contents of Big Table , I have read only 'Naked Lunch' with card, and I am discussing only it in this letter. The other pieces seemed harmless enough, but they were not written for me.) Confidential unrealistically romanticized unethical behavior, and made us reasonably stable readers feel that we were missing much in our normal lives. There was no hint that in the long run ethical behavior leads to a happy life--as, I think, it really does. For his part, Burroughs realistically illustrates the miserable life of a drug addict, and our reaction must certainly be that he, not we, is missing the real excitement of life. A reader of Confidential wants to seduce a starlet; a reader of 'Naked Lunch' sighs with relief that he has avoided the horror of drug addiction, and he returns with greater satisfaction to the ordinary pleasures of his moral life--pleasures which Mr. Burroughs is unable to experience. Surely a normal reader will respond to this story as I responded to it; but, honestly, I cannot imagine what sort of reader might find Burroughs' descriptions attractive.

"'Naked Lunch' calls to mind 'Confessions of an English Opium Eater,' but of the two Burroughs' work is in my mind the superior one, and also, for somewhat different reasons, the one less damaging to society. DeQuincey wrote vaguely, and he romanticized his experiences greatly. And he did not have the advantages of Mr. Burroughs' great scientific knowledge. Burroughs is honest, and his treatment strikes me as being complete. DeQuincey, I am sure, has encouraged many people to experiment with narcotics; Burroughs, in explaining the real results of such experimentation, certainly must have quite the opposite effect.

"I dislike the repetition of my ideas here, but surely the central question is whether 'Naked Lunch' has a good or bad effect on society.

"Can it be the 'dirty words' that have encouraged the post office to ban this work? I hope not. Personally, I do not use such language, but my four-year-old daughter does. As a camp counselor, I was often amused by my prudishness in avoiding the speech of my eight-year-old charges. Surely our society is not so prudish that authors cannot talk like my young daughter. Swearing is not the only kind of language that I avoid. I try not to use jargon of various sorts, but I would hesitate to suggest that all works containing it be banned. I have chosen not to talk that way, and I hope that my daughters will not grow up to talk and think in jargon. I suppose, though, that thinking in profanity is inevitable. I would suggest that we all realize that various types of language exist, and that an author can choose the one best suited for what he is trying to do and that a person can choose the one best suited for what he is trying to be.

"I hesitate to offer the argument that 'Naked Lunch' is a serious work of art, and therefore should be circulated widely, because this sort of argument is pretty vague, but I do feel that such is the case. It does seem to me that Mr. Burroughs has achieved an artistic unity behind the apparent chaos of his story that, say, Joyce, working in somewhat the same way, didn't quite manage. 'Naked Lunch' does give us the feelings of a man who has touched a psychological bottom, and the impression left with a reader is a lasting one. Certainly the prose is written by a real craftsman. Burroughs has caught the quick rhythms of our quick age with his sudden shifts of thought and sudden wise-cracks, and he reflects our hard cynicism with its underlying hope and desire for life."

James Laughlin - Publisher, New Directions Press.

Describes writers in Big Table 1 as being writers of "seriousness and caliber." "These writers whom you have published are neither purveyors of smut nor sensation seekers; they are sensitive and gifted writers attempting to recreate in formal terms, the life which they see around them."

Roy H. Miller - Editor and Publisher, San Francisco Review.

Express legal opinion on one of the ultimate issues in this case. This statement is not received in evidence.

Francis Golffing - Department of English, Bennington College.

"While the esthetic value of the contributions varies from case to case, the intention of every single contributor is utterly serious."

Rev. Pierre Delattre - Congregational Minister, Bread and Wine Congregation, San Francisco.

"As a Congregational minister, my religious convictions compel me to offer whatever testimony I can to the importance of your magazine as a medium from which we can gain insight into those most profound levels of feeling and thought which keep us in touch with what is ultimate in human existence. Without such penetration of experience, we are unable to understand, to love or to judge." "Here is serious writing by authors of integrity. It begins to give one a little faith that, despite the press, we might be able to get down to the root of the current rebellion by many artists against a spiritually dead society."

William Butler - Director, Literature and Drama; Production Director, Radio Station KPFA, Berkeley, California.

"This letter is not meant to constitute any form of literary appraisal of the contents of BIG TABLE 1, for I cannot pretend to be in complete accord with the editors of BIG TABLE as to the value of the literature in their first issue. There is no doubt, however, that the contents of this magazine are intended to be, and exist as, seriously inquiring literature." "There is, indeed, nothing in this magazine which would be of real interest to anyone except persons deeply involved in the art and craft and writing, and readers of much discernment and intelligence; in other words, whether it is good literature or bad literature, it is highly selective and erudite literature."

James Boyer May - Director, Villiers Publications, London; Editor, TRACE.

"I would say that [Big Table 1] is a serious literary publication by obvious intent." "These writers seem intent upon realistic depictions of mental states; and the passages having to do with criminality are but portions of extensive sick or morbid or otherwise quite uninviting contemplations, including those induced by drink or drugs."

Lawrence Ferlinghetti - Publisher, City Lights Press, San Francisco; bookseller and poet.

"In the case of BIG TABLE 1 , practically any qualified, unbiased critic would have to admit that there is social importance in all of the material therein and further that the authors of this material are all well-known, serious writers in the avant-garde of American literature."

Marc D. Schleifer - Author and critic, contributor to The Greenwich Village VOICE.

MARC D. SCHLEIFER, a frequent contributor to The Voice, is in another capacity a poet and a friend of the leading "beat generation" writers.

"Readers of 'Big Table 1' (its cover flamboyantly red, white, and blue) are witnessing not merely another quarterly birth but rather a thorough literary resurrection. 'Big Table 1' contains the complete contents of the suppressed winter issue of the Chicago Review. The contributors are Jack Kerouac, Edward Dahlberg, William S. Burroughs, and Gregory Corso. That the former editors of the Chicago Review have successfully arranged independent publication can only be taken as a healthy sign. Literature may yet survive the bosomy bear hug of its official protector--the Academy.

"The episodes from Burroughs' unpublished 'Naked Lunch' would alone justify 'Big Table's' existence. Writing of a world seen through 'the dead, undersea eyes of junk,' Burroughs' prose flies spear-like at the reader; phrases, images thrown in swift clean motions. The wild humor and mad fantasies possess a quality that Gide described as 'hallucinations of reality' when speaking of Celine. Organized in mosaic form, 'Naked Lunch' earns its own unique continuity through an acute sense of the instantaneous.

"Jack Kerouac's 'Old Angel Midnight' is also episodic. Sadly, there the similarity ends. Not that incoherence is the problem, no matter how hard Kerouac strives for Joycean tone. In the name of spontaneous prosody, Kerouac strains and strains, only to bequeath a sloppy boredom. Pretentious style can never mask dull content, and true spontaneity equates a state of mind, not a narrow technique. In magnificent contrast are Dahlberg's 'Further Sorrows of Priapus.' Dahlberg is one of the last old masters of the article; his rare peers lie buried in back issues of Black Mountain Review. Discussing the Persian tyrants he writes: 'War is the amour of the insane, the voluptuous entertainment of the tyrant. Despotism comes from the insatiable belly and the scrotum ...' Dahlberg has also contributed a long and somewhat tedious poem, 'The Garment of Ra,' that still merits reading for its occasional lyrical gems.

"Gregory Corso's appeal has in the past resided in his treatment of prosaic subjects with a paradoxical, wild-gentle, wonderful humor. His three poems in 'Big Table' -- 'Power,' 'Army,' and 'Police'--are his most ambitious published attempts since his magnificent broad-side, 'BOMB.' In 'Power' and 'Army,' however, Corso is unfortunately unable to sustain his special sense of revelation unfolding into greater revelation.

Not that any of his images are to be dismissed (those in 'Power' reel the reader); it's rather a problem of movement. But 'Police' is superb in every respect."

Jacques Barzun - Critic, Dean of the Colleges, Columbia University

Comments on some standards of obscenity. This letter not received in evidence.

Kenneth Burke - Critic, member of the Institutes for Advanced Studies, Princeton University.

"In my opinion, many passages in this collection are stylistically interesting and valuable. They possess a certain turbulance or saliency that, being attained at times by inventiveness and imaginativeness, are good for literature." "Though the gestures here embodied are a bit obsessive, they serve well to express one motivational strand among the many that should comprise the total dialogue of our civilization."

Thomas Parkinson - Associate Professor of English, University of California.

"The intent of the several works is serious."

"In Burroughs' work, for instance, the chief intent is to see the world from a perspective that is frankly ill, the perspective of a body physiologically changed by chemical processes. It does not make that perspective attractive but horrible, and from that horrible perspective looks on the world in such a way as to distort and abstract from it patterns toward which it tends. Hence it seems to me, like much satirical work, corrective in intent. At no point does it wallow cheerfully in the horror; it describes it in terms that manifestly make it horrible." "Please let me add, not to hedge on the matter, but to declare my own literary judgment, that I find much of Burroughs' work tedious, repetitive, and dull. However, I think it is serious in intent and has in it several moments of rare insight." "I do not comment on the other material directly because I would be utterly baffled if any one objected to it because of alleged obscenity."

Le Roi Jones - Editor of Yugen and publisher of Totem Press, New York City.

"The works in question (Kerouac and Burroughs) are unquestionably intended to be artifacts (of one kind or another), 'made' objects; things to be kept & looked at (even learned from) for as long as they have some meaning for (this?) society." "I would say there is not the least erotic intent in either of the works." "but the strange thing is that neither one of the writers in question is a 'naturalist' ... that's a mere front, a vehicle. Both are great romantics with strong penchants for the fantastic." "& on top of all this, the Burroughs piece is perhaps the finest prose work to use America as its jumping off point in some time."

Gerhart Piers, M.D. - Director, Institute of Psychoanalysis of Chicago.

Expresses opinion as to obscenity of the publication -- not received in evidence.

Lionel Trilling - Critic and Professor of English, Columbia University.

Gives his opinion as to whether publication is "obscene." States "I am sure I can count on you not to interpret this as critical approval of the pieces I shall be glad to defend in a legal way]"

1/ It will be noted that some of the matter included in Appendix B consists of legal conclusions of the writers, but in these cases the opinions on the legal and literary questions were so inextricably mingled that it was believed better to include the whole communication.

2/ There are many cases supporting this proposition, but limitations of time and space do not permit their inclusion here. Harris and Breard serve to illustrate the point.