Digest Lampoon Stirs Wrath of Police of Boston and Cambridge

The Police Departments of Boston and Cambridge joined action yesterday and suppressed the Literary Digest issue of the Lampoon on the grounds of obscenity and desecration of the flag.

There was a persistent rumor about the University last night that the "Dial" number of the Advocate had also been suppressed because of the objectional nature of its contents. The Boston American made the statement that "Copies of the Harvard Advocate of the date of April 15 were removed from the newsstands of Cambridge by the police today" but, on thorough investigation, this was found to be untrue. Captain Hurley of the Police force explained that no action had been taken against the Advocate and that, to the best of his knowledge, no steps were being considered toward suppression.

Police Are Like Liquor Agents

The first move in the Lampoon matter came at 10.30 yesterday morning when two police captains entered the Lampoon Building, forbade further sale of the current issue, and threatened confiscation of all copies on the newsstands, Members of the Lampoon board rushed out and, only a little ahead of the police, themselves withdrew all but five or six copies, which fell into the hands of the police. In their eagerness to confiscate every available copy of the Lampoon parody of the Literary Digest the police took over a supply of the genuine Digest, but soon returned them. Speaking of the search conducted by the police agents, Felix, the proprietor of a Harvard Square newsstand, asserted, "This is the most exciting day we have for 15 years." The proprietor of another establishment, at the corner of Harvard Square and Brattle, declared that the agents raided his store with the thoroughness of prohibition agents.

By this time bootlegging of the copies of the proscribed publication began to be put on a business basis. At 11.30 the price was quoted at $1 and an hour later, at $2.50. The price rose continually all afternoon, and at 8 last night contraband copies were offered at $8.

Complainant Is Unknown

It is unknown who is responsible for the action against the Lampoon.

A protest by J. Frank Chase, Secretary of the Watch and Ward Society is one of the theories advanced, but this is refuted by a vigorous denial by Mr. Chase. "We had absolutely nothing to do with the suppression of the Lampoon," said Mr. Chase, "We knew nothing about it; obsolutely nothing. We never had any question about it. We made no complaint and heard none. It is not our business. We concern ourselves in the houses of ill fame, opium dens, gambling houses, and so forth, but we had absolutely nothing to do with the suppression of the Lampoon."

It has also been suggested that the original complaint was entered by some one personally offended by one of the Lampoon's caricatures.

The Lampoon, it was announced from the Police Superintendent's office in Boston yesterday, was suppressed for two violations of the law: first, the improper display of the United States flag on the front cover and, second, for the display of an obscene picture on the inside.

POLICE ACTION AROUSES GENERAL INDIGNATION

"The cover of the Literary Digest Number of the Lampoon is similar to the picture of Washington crossing the Delaware. There is no desecration of the flag--actual or intended.

"The other picture mentioned by the papers is a copy, slightly changed, of one of Manet's famous paintings in the Luxembourg.

"We have been advised that the current issue of The Lampoon does not violate the law."--Lampoon.

"It would be well worth while for the Lampoon to get a counsel and fight the matter out."--Professor Zechariah Chafee.

"I cannot believe that the Lampoon will not contest this action of the police authorities in the courts. . . . Pretending to be patriotic and vigilant, the authorities have merely shown themselves to be ridiculous and meddlesome."--Professor Felix Frankfurter.

"The reasons alleged for the suppression of the Lampoon--the desecration of the American flag, and the reproduction, with slight changes, of a famous painting hanging in the Luxembourg, are almost too puerile to merit credence."--Liberal Club.