Editing September Morn (section)

====New York====
[[File:Anthony Comstock.jpg|thumb|Anti-vice crusader [[Anthony Comstock]]; his reaction to the painting promoted further controversy.]]
Further controversy arose in New York in May 1913, two months after the conclusion of the Chicago trial. [[Anthony Comstock]], head of the [[New York Society for the Suppression of Vice]] and nationally recognized for his campaigns against "smut",{{efn|Comstock had spearheaded [[Comstock laws|laws]] at the end of the 19th century which prohibited the inter-state commerce of material deemed indecent or pornographic. Though he had wide popular support, he also had numerous detractors. Comstock boasted that he had seized more than 160 tons of indecent material during his career {{harv|Healion|1964|p=42}}. He was not averse to arresting art dealers he considered to be peddling reproductions of obscene works; in 1887, for instance, he had arrested Roland Knoedler of the [[Knoedler|Knoedler Gallery]] for selling nudes painted by artists such as [[William-Adolphe Bouguereau]] and [[Jules Joseph Lefebvre]] {{harv|Beisel|1998|p=109}}.}} saw ''September Morn''&nbsp;– sources differ as to whether it was the original or a print{{efn|Modern sources stating that it was the original include {{harvtxt|Brauer|2011|p=124}} and {{harvtxt|Sterling|Salinger|1966|pp=222–223}}, whereas modern sources describing the controversial image as a print include {{harvtxt|Taylor|2012|p=166}}. Contemporary reports are less ambiguous. One describes the controversial image as "grac[ing] a frame less than a foot high" {{harv|The Sun 1913, Nude Maid}}, and in 1933 Ortiz stated that it was a print {{harv|Middletown Times Herald 1933}}.}} &nbsp;– on display in the window of Braun and Company, an art dealership on West 46th Street.{{sfn|The Sun 1913, Nude Maid}}{{sfn|The Sun 1913, Chabas's Picture}} Rushing inside, he raged "There's too little morn and too much maid! Take it out!".{{efn|Other versions are phrased "There's too little morning and too much maid!" {{harv|Monfried|1971|p=9}}, or include further lines such as "It ought to have been pitch dark for a girl to go wading like that" {{harv|The Tuscaloosa News 1937}}. The version told by {{harvtxt|Monfried|1971|p=9}} includes Comstock commenting on [[Jean-François Millet]]'s ''[[:File:Jean-François Millet - The Goose Girl - Walters 37153.jpg|The Goose Girl]]'' while leaving. Yet another quote is given by {{harvtxt|Ellis|1975|p=92}}: "That is not a proper picture to be shown to boys and girls! There is nothing more sacred than the form of a woman, but it must not be denuded. I think everyone will agree with me that such pictures should not be displayed where school children passing through the streets can see them."}}{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}}{{Sfn|Shteir|2004|p=59}}{{sfn|Kendrick|1996|p=147}} A clerk, James Kelly, removed the work, but Ortiz, the gallery's manager, reinstated it in the window after returning from his lunch break.{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}}{{sfn|The Sun 1913, Nude Maid}}

Comstock threatened Ortiz with legal action, and the manager&nbsp;– unaware that Comstock could not arrest him, and fearful that he could cause trouble for the gallery&nbsp;– was initially frightened. He consulted with [[Arthur Brisbane]] of the ''[[New York Journal-American|New York Evening Journal]]'', who told him he had nothing to fear, and sent some reporters to cover the story.{{Sfn|Chase|Chase|1954|pp=64–65}} The following day, the controversy was highly covered in the press, who hailed Ortiz as "one art expert with the courage to stand up against Comstock and his dictatorship". Following Comstock's visit large crowds blocked the street outside Braun and Company, ogling ''September Morn''. The gallery owner refused to sell his large print of ''September Morn'', so that it could remain in his window.{{sfn|The Sun 1913, Nude Maid}}{{sfn|Taylor|2012|p=166}}

After two weeks, when the dealership had sold every print it had, Ortiz removed the display.{{sfn|The Sun 1913, Chabas's Picture}} In a letter to the editor of ''[[The New York Times]]'', he accused Comstock of causing the controversy to earn greater publicity for himself, and stated that he wearied of crowds outside his shop, who blocked paying customers from entering it.{{sfn|The New York Times 1913, Wearies}} Ultimately, Comstock did not pursue legal action. The historian Walter M. Kendrick attributes this apparent leniency to ''September Morn''{{'s}} status as a work of art,{{sfn|Kendrick|1996|p=147}} whereas Gerald Carson, writing in ''[[American Heritage (magazine)|American Heritage]]'', attributes it to a knowledge that no action could be taken against the work.{{sfn|Carson|1961}}

The controversy promoted polemics regarding ''September Morn'' and censorship,{{Sfn|Shteir|2004|p=59}} and multiple [[editorial cartoon]]s; one depicted a young woman bathing, only her head showing, with a caption attributed to Comstock reading "Don't you suppose I can imagine what is UNDER<!--as original--> the water?".{{sfn|Healion|1964|p=42}} Comstock called the work "demoralizing in the extreme and especially calculated to excite immodesty in the young", arguing that it must be suppressed in the [[Think of the children|interest of the children]].{{sfn|Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn}} He emphasized that "the law is the law&nbsp;... the picture will have to come out of the window".{{sfn|The Sun 1913, Nude Maid}} Reverend Sydney Ussher of [[St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church (Manhattan)|St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church]] took a more moderate approach, explaining that "so vivid a display of nudity as ''September Morn''" would best not be displayed in the United States, owing to the people's relative lack of appreciation for art.{{sfn|Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn}}

[[File:Inez milholland.JPG|thumb|Suffragist [[Inez Milholland]] defended ''September Morn'' as "exquisite and delicate, depicting perfect youth and innocence".]]
Others expressed positive views of the painting itself. The suffragist [[Inez Milholland]] defended ''September Morn'', stating that it was "exquisite and delicate, depicting perfect youth and innocence", and found it "funny, if it weren't so sad" that such a work would be censored while more titillating film posters were left untouched.{{sfn|Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn}} The social activist [[Rose Pastor Stokes]] wrote that this "glorious work of art" was a "rare" depiction of "the loveliest dream that nature ever made real—the human Body Beautiful" and that shame over one's body should not be blamed on ''September Morn'', but on a failed education system.{{sfn|Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn}} The artist [[James Montgomery Flagg]] proclaimed "only a diseased mind can find anything immoral in ''September Morn''".{{sfn|Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn}}

In his 1931 autobiography,{{sfn|Reichenbach|Freedman|1931|pp=104–105}} the [[public relations]] pioneer [[Harry Reichenbach]] claimed responsibility for the controversy surrounding ''September Morn''&nbsp;– and the work's resulting popularity. He stated that Braun and Company had acquired some 2,000 reproductions of the painting which they could not sell, and then hired him for $45{{efn|${{Inflation|US|45|1913|fmt=c}} today.{{Inflation-fn|US}}}} so that he could unload the stock. They then paid for a large [[lithograph]] reproduction to be made and put on display.{{sfn|Considine|1957|p=3}} Reichenbach, he stated, then contacted public figures to protest against the display. When there was no response, he accosted Comstock in his office and dragged him to the dealership, where some young children, whom Reichenbach had hired for fifty cents each, lusted over the display. The public relations man then worked towards maintaining interest in the work, prints of which had already increased in price&nbsp;– from 10 cents to a dollar.{{sfn|Considine|1957|p=3}}{{sfn|Ellis|1975|pp=91–92}} Reichenbach's claim that his actions "brought the picture into the newspapers and into fame" has been questioned, particularly given that the Chicago court case had happened months earlier, and contemporary news accounts do not mention him.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_september_morn_hoax/|title=The September Morn Hoax|work=Museum of Hoaxes}}</ref>