In the second place this statute does not forbid publication of the polemical. “It seems to be”, says Andrews, _J._, of the book under review by the Court of Appeals, “largely a protest against what the author, we believe mistakenly, regards as the prudery of newspaper criticism.” (_Halsey_ v. _New York Society_, 234 N. Y. 1, 4.) The prosecutor, and indeed the court itself, may not agree with what the book may advocate, may not take the sentiment which it expresses, but the book cannot be condemned for that. “Differ as men may as to the views of Voltaire on many questions”, said Seabury, _J._, in the case which we have already cited, “his works cannot be burned by the public hangman under the guise of a section of our Penal Code.” (_St. Hubert’s Guild_ v. _Quinn_, 64 Misc. 336, 342.) We need not, however, pursue this subject further, because _People_ v. _Eastman_ (188 N. Y. 478) stands as a monument to the proposition under discussion. One has only to read the article for which an indictment was brought (it is repeated verbatim in the dissenting opinion of O’Brien, _J._, at pp. 482-484) to realize that its nature was such as to excite in the minds of thousands of our best citizens feelings which it is impossible adequately to describe. Yet, disregarding the decision of the English courts in _Regina_ v. _Hicklin_ (L. B. 3 Q. B. 369), where a precisely similar book was held indictable, our Court of Appeals sustained a demurrer to an indictment which set forth the article in question. Nor is it necessary, in order to protect a book from indictment, that it teach a moral lesson. _People_ v. _Brainard_ (192 App. Div. 816); _Halsey_ v. _N. Y. Society_ (234 N. Y. 1). The Appellate Division of this Department has well borne out this proposition when, in reversing a judgment of conviction, it said: “I can see no useful purpose in the publication of the book. I cannot agree that it has any moral lesson to teach. Its publication might well be prohibited as a recital of life in the underworld, as is prohibited books containing recitals of crimes.” (_People_ v. _Brainard_, 192 App. Div. 816, 821.) In short, this statute was not intended, as the Court of Appeals has said in one of the cases above cited, “to regulate manners”. (_People_ v. _Eastman_, 188 N. Y. 478, 480.) What then do these tests of the law come to? The courts in their own words have told us that. If the book has literary merit, then it is not within the condemnation of the statute. O’Brien, _J._: