* From "Ingersoll As He Is," by E. M. Macdonald.
"ONE of the charges most persistently made against Colonel Ingersoll is
that during and after the trial of D. M. Bennett, persecuted by Anthony
Comstock, the Colonel endeavored to have the law against sending obscene
literature through the mail repealed. That the charge is maliciously
false is fully shown by the following brief history of events connected
with the prosecution of D. M. Bennett, and Mr. Ingersoll's efforts in
his behalf....
"After Mr. Bennett's arrest in 1877, he printed a petition to Congress,
written by T. B. Wakeman, asking for the _repeal or modification_ of
Comstock's law by which he expected to stamp out the publications of
Freethinkers....
"The connection of Mr. Ingersoll with this petition is soon explained.
Mr. Ingersoll knew of Comstock's attempts to suppress heresy by means of
this law, and when called upon by the Washington committee in charge
of the petition, he allowed his name to go on the petition for
modification, but he told them distinctly and plainly that he was _not_
in favor of the _repeal_ of the law, as he was willing and anxious that
obscenity should be suppressed by all legal means. His sentiments are
best expressed by himself in a letter to the _Boston Journal_. He says:
"'Washington, March 18, 1878.
"'To the Editor of the Boston Journal:
"'My attention has been called to the following article that recently
appeared in your paper:
"'Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, and others, feel aggrieved because Congress,
in 1873, enacted a law for the suppression of obscene literature, and,
believing it an infringement of the rights of certain citizens, and an
effort to muzzle the press and conscience, petition for its repeal. When
a man's conscience permits him to spread broadcast obscene literature,
it is time that conscience was muzzled. The law is a terror only to
evil-doers."
"'No one wishes the repeal of any law for the suppression of obscene
literature. For my part, I wish all such laws rigidly enforced. The only
objection I have to the law of 1873 is, that it has been construed to
include books and pamphlets written against the religion of the day,
although containing nothing that can be called obscene or impure.
Certain religious fanatics, taking advantage of the word "immoral" in
the law, have claimed that all writings against what they are pleased to
call orthodox religion are immoral, and such books have been seized and
their authors arrested. To this, and this only, I object.
"'Your article does me great injustice, and I ask that you will have the
kindness to publish this note.
"'From the bottom of my heart I despise the publishers of obscene
literature. Below them there is no depth of filth. And I also despise
those, who, under the pretence of suppressing obscene literature,
endeavor to prevent honest and pure men from writing and publishing
honest and pure thoughts. Yours truly.
"'R. G. Ingersoll.'
"This is sufficiently easy of comprehension even for ministers, but of
course they misrepresented and lied about the writer. From that day
to this he has been accused of favoring the dissemination of obscene
literature. That the friends of Colonel Ingersoll may know just
how infamous this is, we will give a brief history of the repeal or
modification movement....
"On October 26, the National Liberal League held its Congress in
Syracuse. At this Congress the League left the matter of repeal or
modification of the laws open, taking no action as an organization,
either way, but elected officers known to be in favor of repeal. On
December 10, Mr. Bennett was again arrested. He was tried, and found
guilty; he appealed, the conviction was affirmed, and he was sentenced
to thirteen months' imprisonment at hard labor.
"After the trial Colonel Ingersoll interposed, and endeavored to get
a pardon for Mr. Bennett, who was held in Ludlow street jail pending
President Hayes's reply. The man who occupied the President's office
promised to pardon the Infidel editor; then he went back on his word,
and Mr. Bennett served his term of imprisonment.
"Then preachers opened the sluiceways of vituperation and billingsgate
upon Colonel Ingersoll for having interceded for a man convicted of
mailing obscene literature. The charges were as infamously false then
as they are now, and to show it, it is only necessary to quote
Colonel Ingersoll's words during the year or two succeeding, when
the Freethinkers and the Christians were not only opposing each
other vigorously, but the Freethinkers themselves were divided on the
question. In 1879, while Mr. Bennett was in prison, a correspondent of
the Nashville, Tenn., _Banner_ said that the National Liberal League and
Colonel Ingersoll were in favor of disseminating obscene literature. To
this Colonel Ingersoll replied in a letter to a friend:
"1417 G St., Washington, Aug. 21, 1879.
"'My Dear Sir: The article in the Nashville _Banner_ by "J. L." is
utterly and maliciously false.
"'A petition was sent to Congress praying for the repeal or modification
of certain postal laws, to the end that the freedom of conscience and of
the press should not be abridged.
"'Nobody holds in greater contempt than I the writers, publishers, or
dealers in obscene literature. One of my objections to the Bible is that
it contains hundreds of grossly obscene passages not fit to be read by
any decent man, thousands of passages, in my judgment, calculated to
corrupt the minds of youth. I hope the time will soon come when the
good sense of the American people will demand a Bible with all obscene
passages left out.
"'The only reason a modification of the postal laws is necessary is that
at present, under color of those laws, books and pamphlets are excluded
from the mails simply because they are considered heterodox and
blasphemous. In other words, every man should be allowed to write,
publish, and send through the mails his thoughts upon any subject,
expressed in a decent and becoming manner. As to the propriety of giving
anybody authority to overhaul mails, break seals, and read private
correspondence, that is another question.
"'Every minister and every layman who charges me with directly or
indirectly favoring the dissemination of anything that is impure,
retails what he knows to be a wilful and malicious lie. I remain, Yours
truly,
"'R. G. Ingersoll.'
"Three weeks after this letter was written the National Liberal League
held its third annual Congress at Cincinnati. Colonel Ingersoll was
chairman of the committee on resolutions and platform and unfinished
business of the League. One of the subjects to be dealt with was these
Comstock laws. The following are Colonel Ingersoll's remarks and the
resolutions he presented:
"'It may be proper, before presenting the resolutions of the committee,
to say a word in explanation. The committee were charged with the
consideration of the unfinished business of the League. It seems that
at Syracuse there was a division as to what course should be taken in
regard to the postal laws of the United States. These laws were used
as an engine of oppression against the free circulation of what we
understand to be scientific literature. Every honest man in this country
is in favor of allowing every other human being every right that he
claims for himself. The majority at Syracuse were at that time simply
in favor of the absolute repeal of those laws, believing them to be
unconstitutional--not because they were in favor of anything obscene,
but because they were opposed to the mails of the United States being
under the espionage and bigotry of the church. They therefore demanded
an absolute repeal of the law. Others, feeling that they might be
misunderstood, and knowing that theology can coin the meanest words
to act as the vehicle of the lowest lies, were afraid of being
misunderstood, and therefore they said, Let us amend these laws so that
our literature shall be upon an equality with that of theology. I know
that there is not a Liberal here, or in the United States, that is in
favor of the dissemination of obscene literature. One of the objections
which we have to the book said to be written by God is that it is
obscene.
"'The Liberals of this country believe in purity, and they believe that
every fact in nature and in science is as pure as a star. We do not need
to ask for any more than we want. We simply want the laws of our country
so framed that we are not discriminated against. So, taking that view of
the vexed question, we want to put the boot upon the other foot. We want
to put the charge of obscenity where it belongs, and the committee, of
which I have the honor to be one of the members, have endeavored to do
just that thing. Men have no right to talk to me about obscenity who
regard the story of Lot and his daughters as a fit thing for men, women,
and children to read, and who worship a God in whom the violation of
[_Cheers drowned the conclusion of this sentence so the reporters could
not hear it._] Such a God I hold in infinite contempt.
"'Now I will read you the resolutions recommended by the committee.
"'RESOLUTIONS.
"'Your committee have the honor to submit the following report: "'First,
As to the unfinished business of the League, your committee submits the
following resolutions:
"'Resolved., That we are in favor of such postal laws as will allow the
free transportation through the mails of the United States of all books,
pamphlets, and papers, irrespective of the religious, irreligious,
political, and scientific views they may contain, so that the literature
of science may be placed upon an equality with that of superstition.
"'Resolved, That we are utterly opposed to the dissemination, through
the mails, or by any other means, of obscene literature, whether
"inspired" or uninspired, and hold in measureless contempt its authors
and disseminators.
"'Resolved, That we call upon the Christian world to expunge from the
so-called "sacred" Bible every passage that cannot be read without
covering the cheek of modesty with the blush of shame; and until such
passages are expunged, we demand that the laws against the dissemination
of obscene literature be impartially enforced. '...
"We believe that lotteries and obscenity should be dealt with by State
and municipal legislation, and offenders punished in the county in which
they commit their offence. So in those days we argued for the repeal of
the Comstock laws, as did dozens of others--James Parton, Elizur Wright,
O. B. Frothingham, T. C. Leland, Courtlandt Palmer, and many more whose
names we do not recall. But Colonel Ingersoll did not, and when the
National Liberal League met the next year at Chicago (September 17,
1880), he was opposed to the League's making a pledge to defend every
case under the Comstock laws, and he was opposed to a resolution
demanding a repeal of those laws. The following is what Colonel
Ingersoll said upon the subject:
"'Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer the following resolution in place and
instead of resolutions numbered 5 and 6:
"'Resolved, That the committee of defence, whenever a person has been
indicted for what he claims to have been an honest exercise of the
freedom of thought and expression, shall investigate the case, and if it
appears that such person has been guilty of no offence, then it shall
be the duty of said committee to defend such person if he is unable to
defend himself.'
"'Now, allow me one moment to state my reasons. I do not, I have not, I
never shall, accuse or suspect a solitary member of the Liberal League
of the United States of being in favor of doing any act under heaven
that he is not thoroughly convinced is right. We all claim freedom of
speech, and it is the gem of the human soul. We all claim a right to
express our honest thoughts. Did it ever occur to any Liberal that
he wished to express any thought honestly, truly, and legally that he
considered immoral? How does it happen that _we_ have any interest in
what is known as immoral literature? I deny that the League has any
interest in that kind of literature. Whenever we mention it, whenever we
speak of it, we put ourselves in a false position. What do we want? We
want to see to it that the church party shall not smother the literature
of Liberalism. We want to see to it that the viper of intellectual
slavery shall not sting our cause. We want it so that every honest man,
so that every honest woman, can express his or her honest thought upon
any subject in the world. And the question, and the only question, as to
whether they are amenable to the law, in my mind, is, Were they honest?
Was their effort to benefit mankind? Was that their intention? And no
man, no woman, should be convicted of any offence that that man or woman
did not intend to commit. Now, then, suppose some person is arrested,
and it is claimed that a work written by him is immoral, is illegal.
Then, I say, let our committee of defence examine that case, and if
our enemies are seeking to trample out Freethought under the name of
immorality, and under the cover and shield of our criminal law, then let
us defend that man to the last dollar we have. But we do not wish to put
ourselves in the position of general defenders of all the slush that may
be written in this or any other country. You cannot afford to do it.
You cannot afford to put into the mouth of theology a perpetual and
continual slur. You cannot afford to do it. And this meeting is not the
time to go into the question of what authority the United States may
have over the mails. It is a very wide question. It embraces many
others. Has the Government a right to say what shall go into the mails?
Why, in one sense, assuredly. Certainly they have a right to say you
shall not send a horse and wagon by mail. They have a right to fix some
limit; and the only thing we want is that the literature of liberty, the
literature of real Freethought, shall not be discriminated against.
And we know now as well as if it had been perfectly and absolutely
demonstrated, that the literature of Freethought will be absolutely
pure. We know it, We call upon the Christian world to expunge obscenity
from their book, and until that is expunged we demand that the laws
against obscene literature shall be executed. And how can we, in the
next resolution, say those laws ought all to be repealed? We cannot do
that. I have always been in favor of such an amendment of the law that
by no trick, by no device, by no judicial discretion, an honest, high,
pure-minded man should be subjected to punishment simply for giving his
best and his honest thought. What more do we need? What more can we ask?
I am as much opposed as my friend Mr. Wakeman can be to the assumption
of the church that it is the guardian of morality. If our morality is
to be guarded by that sentiment alone, then is the end come. The natural
instinct of self-defence in mankind and in all organized society is the
fortress of the morality in mankind. The church itself was at one time
the outgrowth of that same feeling, but now the feeling has outgrown the
church. Now, then, we will have a Committee of Defence. That committee
will examine every case. Suppose some man has been indicted, and suppose
he is guilty. Suppose he has endeavored to soil the human mind. Suppose
he has been willing to make money by pandering to the lowest passions
in the human breast. What will that committee do with him then? We will
say, "Go on; let the law take its course." But if, upon reading his
book, we find that he is all wrong, horribly wrong, idiotically wrong,
but make up our minds that he was honest in his error, I will give
as much as any other living man of my means to defend that man. And I
believe you will all bear me witness when I say that I have the cause of
intellectual liberty at heart as much as I am capable of having anything
at heart. And I know hundreds of others here just the same. I understand
that. I understand their motive. I believe it to be perfectly good, but
I truly and honestly think they are mistaken.
If we have an interest in the business, I would fight for it. If our
cause were assailed by law, then I say fight; and our cause is assailed,
and I say fight. They will not allow me, in many States of this Union,
to testify. I say fight until every one of those laws is repealed. They
discriminate against a man simply because he is honest. Repeal such
laws. The church, if it had the power to-day, would trample out every
particle of free literature in this land. And when they endeavor to
do that, I say fight. But there is a distinction wide as the
Mississippi--yes, wider than the Atlantic, wider than all the
oceans--between the literature of immorality and the literature of
Freethought. One is a crawling, slimy lizard, and the other an
angel with wings of light. Now, let us draw this distinction, let us
understand ourselves, and do not give to the common enemy a word covered
with mire, a word stained with cloaca, to throw at us. We thought we had
settled that question a year ago. We buried it then, and I say let it
rot.
"'This question is of great importance. It is the most important one we
have here. I have fought this question; I am ever going to do so, and
I will not allow anybody to put a stain upon me. This question must be
understood if it takes all summer. Here is a case in point. Some lady
has written a work which, I am informed, is a good work, and that has
nothing wrong about it. Her opinions may be foolish or wise. Let this
committee examine that case. If they find that she is a good woman, that
she had good intentions, no matter how terrible the work may be, if
her intentions are good, she has committed no crime. I want the honest
thought. I think I have always been in favor of it. But we haven't the
time to go into all these questions.
"'Then comes the question for this house to decide in a moment whether
these cases should have been tried in the State or Federal court. I
want it understood that I have confidence in the Federal courts of the
nation. There may be some bad judges, there may be some idiotic jurors.
I think there was in that case [of Mr. Bennett]. But the Committee of
Defence, if I understand it, supplied means, for the defence of that
man. They did, but are we ready now to decide in a moment what courts
shall have jurisdiction? Are we ready to say that the Federal courts
shall be denied jurisdiction in any case arising about the mails?
Suppose somebody robs the mails? Before whom shall we try the robber?
Try him before a Federal judge. Why? Because he has violated a Federal
law. We have not any time for such an investigation as this. What we
want to do is to defend free speech everywhere. What we want to do is to
defend the expression of thought in papers, in pamphlets, in books. What
we want to do is to see to it that these books, papers, and pamphlets
are on an equality with all other books, papers, and pamphlets in the
United States mails. And then the next step we want to take, if any man
is indicted under the pretence that he is publishing immoral books,
is to have our Committee of Defence well examine the case; and if we
believe the man to be innocent we will help defend him if he is
unable to defend himself; and if we find that the law is wrong in that
particular, we will go for the amendment of that law. I beg of you to
have some sense in this matter. We must have it. If we don't, upon that
rock we shall split--upon that rock we shall again divide. Let us not do
it. The cause of intellectual liberty is the highest to the human mind.
Let us stand by it, and we can help all these people by this resolution.
We can do justice everywhere with it, while if we agree to the fifth and
sixth resolutions that have been offered I say we lay ourselves open to
the charge, and it will be hurled against us, no matter how unjustly,
that we are in favor of widespread immorality.
"'Mr. Clarke: We are not afraid of it.
"'Colonel Ingersoll: You may say we are not afraid. I am not afraid. He
only is a fool who rushes into unnecessary danger.
"'Mr. Clarke: What are you talking about, anyway?
"'Colonel Ingersoll: I am talking with endeavor to put a little sense
into such men as you. Your very question shows that it was necessary
that I should talk. And now I move that my resolution be adopted.
"'Mr. Wakeman moved that it be added to that portion of the sixth
resolution which recommended the constitution of the Committee of
Defence.
"'Col. Ingersoll: I cannot agree to the sixth resolution. I think nearly
every word of it is wrong in principle. I think it binds us to a course
of action that we shall not be willing to follow; and my resolution
covers every possible case. My resolution binds us to defend every
honest man in the exercise of his right. I can't be bound to say that
the Government hasn't control of its morals--that we cannot trust the
Federal courts--that, under any circumstances, at any time, I am bound
to defend, either by word or money, any man who violates the laws of
this country.
"'Mr. Wakeman: We do not say that.
"'Colonel Ingersoll: I beg of you, I beseech you, not to pass the sixth
resolution. If you do, I wouldn't give that [snapping his fingers] for
the platform. A part of the Comstock law authorizes the vilest possible
trick. We are all opposed to that.
"'Mr. Leland: What is the question?
"'Colonel Ingersoll: Don't let us be silly. Don't let us say we are
opposed to what we are not opposed to. If any man here is opposed to
putting down the vilest of all possible trash he ought to go home.
We are opposed to only a part of the law--opposed to it whenever they
endeavor to trample Freethought under foot in the name of immorality.
Afterward, at the same session of the Congress, the following colloquy
took place between Colonel Ingersoll and T. B. Wakeman:
"'Colonel Ingersoll: You know as well as I that there are certain
books not fit to go through the mails--books and pictures not fit to be
delivered.
"'Mr. Wakeman: That is so.
"'Colonel Ingersoll: There is not a man here who is not in favor, when
these books and pictures come into the control of the United States,
of burning them up when they are manifestly obscene. You don't want any
grand jury there.
"'Mr. Wakeman: Yes, we do.
"'Colonel Ingersoll: No, we don't. When they are manifestly obscene,
burn them up.
"'A delegate: Who is to be judge of that?
"'Colonel Ingersoll: There are books that nobody differs about. There
are certain things about which we can use discretion. If that discretion
is abused, a man has his remedy. We stand for the free thought of this
country. We stand for the progressive spirit of the United States. We
can't afford to say that all these laws should be repealed. If we had
time to investigate them we could say in what they should be amended.
Don't tie us to this nonsense--to the idea that we have an interest in
immoral literature. Let us remember that Mr. Wakeman is sore. He had a
case before the Federal courts, and he imagines, having lost that case,
you cannot depend on them. I have lost hundreds of cases. I have as much
confidence in the Federal courts as in the State courts. I am not to be
a party to throwing a slur upon the Federal judiciary. All we want is
fair play. We want the same chance for our doctrines that others have
for theirs. And how this infernal question of obscenity ever got into
the Liberal League I could never understand. If an innocent man is
convicted of larceny, should we repeal all the laws on the subject? I
don't pretend to be better than other people.
It is easy to talk right--so easy to be right that I never care to have
the luxury of being wrong. I am advocating something that we can stand
upon. I do not misunderstand Mr. Wakeman's motives. I believe they are
perfectly good--that he is thoroughly honest. Why not just say we will
stand by freedom of thought and its expression? Why not say that we
are in favor of amending any law that is wrong? But do not make the
wholesale statement that all these laws ought to be repealed. They ought
not to be repealed. Some of them are good." The law against sending
instruments of vice in the mails is good, as is the law against sending
obscene books and pictures, and the law against letting ignorant hyenas
prey upon sick people, and the law which prevents the getters up of
bogus lotteries sending their letters through the mail.'
"At the evening session of the Congress, on the same day, Mr. Ingersoll
made this speech in opposition to the resolution demanding the repeal of
the Comstock laws:
"'I am not in favor of the repeal of those laws. I have never been, and
I never expect to be. But I do wish that every law providing for the
punishment of a criminal offence should distinctly define the offence.
That is the objection to this law, that it does not define the offence,
so that an American citizen can readily know when he is about to violate
it and consequently the law ought in all probability to be modified
in that regard. I am in favor of every law defining with perfect
distinctness the offence to be punished, but I cannot say by wholesale
these laws should be repealed. I have the cause of Freethought too much
at heart. Neither will I consent to the repeal simply because the church
is in favor of those laws. In so far as the church agrees with me, I
congratulate the church. In so far as superstition is willing to help
me, good! I am willing to accept it. I believe, also, that this League
is upon a secular basis, and there should be nothing in our platform
that would prevent any Christian from acting with us. What is our
platform?--and we ought to leave it as it is. It needs no amendment.
Our platform is for a secular government. Is it improper in a secular
government to endeavor to prevent the spread of obscene literature? It
is the business of a secular government to do it, but if that government
attempts to stamp out Freethought in the name of obscenity, it is then
for the friends of Freethought to call for a definition of the word, and
such a definition as will allow Freethought to go everywhere through all
the mails of the United States. We are also in favor of secular schools.
Good! We are in favor of doing away with every law that discriminates
against a man on account of his belief. Good! We are in favor of
universal education. Good! We are in favor of the taxation of church
property. Good!--because the experience of the world shows that where
you allow superstition to own property without taxing it, it will absorb
the net profits. Is it time now that we should throw into the scale,
against all these splendid purposes, an effort to repeal some postal
laws against obscenity? As well might we turn the League into an engine
to do away with all laws against the sale of stale eggs.
"'What have we to do with those things? Is it possible that Freethought
can be charged with being obscene? Is it possible that, if the charge
is made, it can be substantiated? Can you not attack any superstition
in the world in perfectly pure language? Can you not attack anything you
please in perfectly pure language? And where a man intends right, no law
should find him guilty; and if the law is weak in that respect, let it
be modified. But I say to you that I cannot go with any body of men who
demand the unconditional repeal of these laws. I believe in liberty
as much as any man that breathes. I will do as much, according to my
ability, as any other man to make this an absolutely free and secular
government I will do as much as any other man of my strength and of my
intellectual power to give every human being every right that I claim
for myself. But this obscene law business is a stumbling block. Had it
not been for this, instead of the few people voting here--less than one
hundred--we would have had a Congress numbered by thousands. Had it not
been for this business, the Liberal League of the United States would
to-night hold in its hand the political destiny of the United States.
Instead of that, we have thrown away our power upon a question in which
we are not interested. Instead of that, we have wasted our resources
and our brain for the repeal of a law that we don't want repealed. If
we want anything, we simply want a modification. Now, then, don't stain
this cause by such a course. And don't understand that I am pretending,
or am insinuating, that anyone here is in favor of obscene literature.
It is a question, not of principle, but of means, and I beg pardon
of this Convention if I have done anything so horrible as has been
described by Mr. Pillsbury. I regret it if I have ever endeavored to
trample upon the rights of this Convention.
"'There is one thing I have not done--I have not endeavored to cast
five votes when I didn't have a solitary vote. Let us be fair; let us be
fair. I have simply given my vote. I wish to trample upon the rights
of no one; and when Mr. Pillsbury gave those votes he supposed he had
a right to give them; and if he had a right, the votes would have been
counted. I attribute nothing wrong to him, but I say this: I have the
right to make a motion in this Congress, I have the right to argue that
motion, but I have no more rights than any other member, and I claim
none. But I want to say to you--and I want you to know and feel it--that
I want to act with every Liberal man and woman in this world. I want you
to know and feel it that I want to do everything I can to get every one
of these statutes off our books that discriminates against a man because
of his religious belief--that I am in favor of a secular government,
and of all these rights. But I cannot, and I will not, operate with any
organization that asks for the unconditional repeal of those laws. I
will stand alone, and I have stood alone. I can tell my thoughts to my
countrymen, and I will do it, and whatever position you take, whether
I am with you or not, you will find me battling everywhere for the
absolute freedom of the human mind. You will find me battling everywhere
to make this world better and grander; and whatever my personal conduct
may be, I shall endeavor to keep my theories right. I beg of you,
I implore you, do not pass the resolution No. 6. It is not for our
interest; it will do us no good. It will lose us hosts of honest,
splendid friends. Do not do it; it will be a mistake; and the only
reason I offered the motion was to give the members time to think this
over. I am not pretending to know more than other people. I am perfectly
willing to say that in many things I know less. But upon this subject I
want you to think. No matter whether you are afraid of your sons, your
daughters, your wives, or your husbands, that isn't it--I don't want the
splendid prospects of this League put in jeopardy upon such an issue
as this. I have no more to say. But if that resolution is passed, all I
have to say is that, while I shall be for liberty everywhere, I cannot
act with this organization, and I will not.'
"The resolution was finally adopted, and Colonel Ingersoll resigned his
office of vice-president in the League, and never acted with it again
until the League dropped all side issues, and came back to first
principles--the enforcement of the Nine Demands of Liberalism."
In 1892, writing upon this subject in answer to a minister who had
repeated these absurd charges, Colonel Ingersoll made this offer:
"I will pay a premium of one thousand dollars a word for each and every
word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene publications
through the mails."