Mr. Justice Osborne.--I think they have such right, as evidence of the intention. Lord Chief Justice Downes.--And the defendant, if he thinks fit, may read all the rest of the book.” (_Fitzpatrick’s Case_, 31 Hows. St. Tr. 1170, 1186.) It follows that if the book must be taken as a whole, then it cannot be condemned piecemeal. No part can be read without a mind to its relation to the whole. In the latest case on the subject, Andrews _J._, speaking for the majority of the court, twice concedes that, taken by themselves, certain parts of the book are not to be justified: “It contains many paragraphs, however, which taken by themselves are undoubtedly vulgar and indecent. * * * On the other hand, it _does_ contain indecent paragraphs.” _Halsey_ v. _N. Y. Society_ (234 N. Y. 1, 4, 6). Yet the book was upheld for all that, both because, in the words which the court adopted from the late Professor Wells of Sewanee, the author there involved “helps us over the instinctive repulsion that we feel for the situation”, and because he excites “a purely artistic interest”, etc. (_Halsey_ v. _N. Y. Society_, 234 N. Y. 1, 5.) 5--The book, read as a whole, sustains the test of the law. The following has been prepared by counsel, with full appreciation of the fact that the book under review must, in the last analysis, speak for itself, and that every book makes its different impression on each mind that it reaches. The only possible aid to reflection which this writing can constitute therefore, lies in such suggestion as it fairly may convey, that Mr. Cabell’s book is literature, in the accepted sense of that term, which is, as the foregoing brief shows, the legal sense as well. It presents a theme and its object is to stimulate reflection. The book in question is a criticism of life. It treats with satire certain of the thoughts so current among us. It is Matthew Arnold and Carlyle in different guise. But the guise adopted is not new or novel. In the Sixteenth Century Erasmus put forth his comments on the ruling ideas of his time by writing a book “In Praise of Folly”. Mr. Cabell has adopted the same method of treatment. To his book can be applied the words which Professor Wells spoke of a book which our Court of Appeals has recently held _not_ to be within the condemnation of the statute invoked in the present case: “With a springboard of fact in the seventeenth century to start from, he * * * transfers the adventures from the real world to a sort of forest of Arden, where the Rosalind of Shakespeare might meet a Watteau shepherdess and a melancholy Jacques.” (_Halsey_ v. _N. Y. Society_, 234 N. Y. 1, 5.)