To be able to judge with some exactitude the decency or indecency of sexual problem novels requires both legal and literary skill It is not always so, naturally, though a certain number of works of literary merit demand a high sense of discrimination in deciding their moral limits. It is not precisely the immorality of a book which settles the question: it is rather its treatment. There are many gross novels, written by persons of inferior education. No doubt can exist as to their indecency. But the publisher, perhaps, who undertakes their publication, is merely careless in his methods. It is his duty, indubitably, to take reasonable precaution; having failed to do so, his position is a bad one. He may be prosecuted, committed for trial, and imprisoned or fined, along with the printer. He also has to bear the loss of production, a consideration in itself, as stated. His “suppressed” novels become unsaleable at once. A recent case at Bow Street Police Court was in a sense interesting from the legal standpoint respecting indecent books. A prosecution was started against the wholesale distributors of certain objectionable novels, the work of an anonymous writer. The identity of the publisher was not disclosed on the title pages of the books, nor did the printer’s imprint appear. The distributors, therefore, stood _in loco parentis_. They were mulcted in fines and costs to the extent of about £400. The novels seized were ordered to be destroyed, as a matter of course. The technical basis for fines on such a scale was the absence of the printer’s imprint--a legal necessity. The penalties attaching to an infringement of the law on this subject make it worth the while of every person responsible for the production of a book to preclude the possibility of an oversight. Certainly, it may be assumed that the mind of the magistrate was (in deciding the case above referred to) largely influenced by the gross character of the books. Nevertheless, the printer’s imprint should always appear. By an anomaly of the law, a writer is not liable for the indecent contents of his (in the recent case at Bow Street, “her”) books. That is to say, so long as they do not constitute a libel upon someone. The brunt of the trouble falls upon the printer and the publisher, more particularly, in practice, upon the publisher. One point which must strike the mind of any person interested in the examination of books for publication is the very proper hostility of the magistracy towards books, however excellent in literary quality, which touch upon unnatural offences. In a novel of some merit--“_The Hazard of the Die_”--a veiled suggestion, very veiled, it seemed, of an unnatural association, ran through a portion of the book. It was suppressed by the authorities, though it bore the imprint of a respectable publisher.