THE PUBLIC LIBRARY CENSORS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11748, 24 November 1903, Page 6

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY CENSORS.

Some comment has been aroused by tlie removal fron» the shelves of the Public Library of the copies of "The W«y of All Flesh," tlie posthumous work of \'he late Mr. Samuel Butler, reviewed last week in our columns by Profcasor ~ale. It is stated that this action waa taken by certain members of the Library CoMmittee, and as the only possible reason for removing books from publio libraries is their harmful effect on morals, it must be presumed that Butler's book is deemed unfit for general reading, either on account of its supposed heterodoxy or indelicacy, or both. We quite agree that the committee ehould exercise a wise discretion in their choice of books for the Library. Impure literature is the deadliest of moral poisons, and unfortunately it is very prevalent to-day. Among the flood of fiction that pours from the printing presses in ever-increasing volume are many novels written apparently for the aols purpose of pandering to the passions of the depraved and exciting them in the innocent. In keeping auch books out of the Library the committee would have the support- of every clean-minded man or woman. But the duty of literary censors is not one to be undertaken lightly nor exercised at random, or in anj narrow spirit. *It is in thb spirit, we are afraid, that, the censors on the committee have passed judgment on "The Way of All Flesh." Howeve- one may regard the writer's views -and disagree with his conclusions, it must be admitted by every one who has read the book that it is absolutely honest, and that those incidents which njay be regarded as objectionable were introduced because, to the author's mind, they were the inevitable results of the life and training of the characters to whom they refer, and essential to the development of his views.

With Butler, as Professor Sale said in j his review, "it was a matter almost of life " and death to ascertain the truth for him-' " self," and having found it, as he believed, "to make it known to others." A book which is the product of such a belief, and which deals with questions of supreme importance should not be ruthlessly expelled from the Library because it offends some by the line whioh is taken. A Library for the general use of the public can hardly be kept within the same narrow limits as a Sunday school library or a collection of books for 4 girls' boarding school. If a book is to be excluded on the ground that it deals with the sex question, however delicately, or becMse it ia not Strictly orthodox from a religious point o?» view, many works which have taken a place, Sn English literature as classics w;ill have to be banished from the shelves. The which the .committee ought to exclude even more rigidly than they do are flimsy, flippant novels, .written with 'an evident design to appeal to prurient tastes and unredeemed by any literary excellence or depth of thought. Much weight should be given to the motive of the writer aa disclosed in his worl- Nov, nobody can .read either Butlers .poithnntous book,' or - Professor i Sale's able review of 'it in our | without realising that although the author , goes at times upon delicate ground, his I motive throughout is of the highest, while j his literary «0-___uu-ifT i» wtpremelyl good. We can »c no valid justification for. excluding it from-he shelves of the library, and if this has been done by the oommitfee, we hope they will reconsider the matter and fevers? their decision. •