to be arrested as a common felon and
placed at great expense, though perfectly innocent, as was the case in
this instance. Yet in spite of this great crime the wronged man has no
redress, while the real criminals, they who caused the persecution of
the innocent, are in no way amenable to the law. This case also
emphasizes the danger flowing from Pharisaism, in its liability to
persecute those who criticise it. The possibilities of evil from this
source cannot be over-estimated, for it looks toward the suppression
of free thought and an untrammeled press and the establishing of a
moral, political, and religious despotism. Briefly stated, the facts
in the case of the Chicago editor are as follows: In November of 1889,
Mr. Caldwell published an earnest plea for Marital Purity, by Rev. C.
E. Walker, a Congregational minister of good standing. The paper was
not coarse or repulsive, but an earnest plea for one of the most vital
and noble reforms imaginable. No notice was taken of this publication
by either Mr. Comstock's agent in Chicago, by Mr. Comstock, or the
postal authorities. Month after month passed, yet no notice was taken;
at last more than six months after the publication of Rev. C. E.
Walker's paper, the editor of _Christian Life_ criticised the action
of the anti-vice society and the postal department in the case of Mr.
Harman. After this, however, the publication of Mr. Walker's paper
seemed to assume in the eyes of our censors of public morals criminal
proportions, and Mr. Caldwell was arrested, one of the chief charges
being the circulation of the paper on "_Marital Purity_," _published
in November, 1889. He was arrested in October, 1890, almost a year
after the publication of the paper objected to by the censors._ Now
there are two points emphasized in this case which are worthy the
serious consideration of thoughtful people. If the post-office
inspector at Chicago, or Mr. Comstock, or if the postal department at
Washington regarded this paper published in November, 1889, as obscene
and believed it came within the limits of the law, why did these three
argus-eyed censors of public morals wink at the offence for _eleven
months_ and take no step against the editor, _until after he had
condemned the post-office department and the anti-vice society_? If
they were right in taking action, _almost a year after the offence_,
were they not guilty of _culpable neglect_ in paying no attention to
it for ten months, or unt