There seems to be some need for the revision of the law applied to literary productions. The subject is a peculiarly important one to writers, printers and publishers, and, to a lesser extent, to the public at large. When a publisher undertakes the publication of a novel, for example, he involves himself in a liability for a considerable sum for its production. The unknown writer may, by a certain contributory process, bear a part of the burden borne by the publisher. Only the writer with a name of one sort or another, or with a certain circulation, can reach the stage which confers the advantage of publication for reward. The publisher has his difficulties to face in securing the services of a writer of this class, and, when these difficulties have been overcome, he has the financial burden of production to confront. This burden is in itself reasonably heavy, with the result that he has to be most careful to avoid publishing any matter, which may be condemned by the authorities as “indecent.” There is something to be said as to what constitutes indecency, of course, and this very uncertainty makes the publisher’s _métier_ the more trying. It is more than trying; it is unfair. The translated works of Marcel Prévost, a writer of genius, a member of the Acadèmie Française, have been suppressed time and time again. Théophile Gautier, Émile Zola, Guy de Maupassant, Gustave Flaubert, and many other writers of the first water, have had the English translations of their works suppressed. Admittedly, the freedom with which sexual relations are dealt with by these writers has sometimes been construed into indecency in this country. Certainly, the translations, or many of them, are inferior in workmanship, and lend themselves to condemnation by their very crudity. However this may be, it is perfectly obvious that the legal method of dealing with indecent or questionable literature is thoroughly inadequate, uncertain in its effect, and needful of drastic improvement. That is to say, primarily, a definite protection and security should be provided for the publisher against loss arising out of the suppression of his publication. It may be said, with partial propriety, that the best way for a publisher to protect himself is not to publish _risqué_ works. But it must be remembered that a publisher is not necessarily an expert on what actually constitutes legal indecency, nor are his readers or advisers.