Book Review: The Subsidized Muse: Public Support for the Arts in the United States

• Author: Kevin V. Mulcahy
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591297903200222
• Published date: 01 June 1979
• Date: 01 June 1979
• Subject Matter: Book Review

Book

Reviews

arid

Notes

233

his

city,

a

real crisis developed.

So

came the Post Ofice Reorganization Act of that

year saying that no postmaster could prevent the delivery of any item, regardless of

what it said. Southern states such as South Carolina passed laws maintaining that

they would not allow such materials to be delivered within their borders.

A

real

question was whether the First Amendment guaranteed the circulation

as

well

as

the publication of newspapers.

Also

questioned just before the Civil TVar was the

relationship of federal law concerning the Post Office and the state laws. Aboli-

tionists’ insistence on sending incendiary literature through the mails in spite of

state laws

was

one factor in bringing about the war.

The

Congressional Act of 1865 stated that “no obscene book, pamphlet, pic-

ture, print or other publication of

a

vulgar or indecent character shall be admitted

into the mails of the United States.

. .

.”

A

new issue had arrived. A law of 1872

prohibited letters or circulars concerning illegal lotteries

or

schemes devised to

defraud the public.

By

the 1880s the postmaster general had been given tremendous power by

Congress; he could even shield citizens from matter that might impair their morals.

The courts on repeated occasions confirmed these acts. Laws enforcing censorship

and so-called treasonable acts during World

IVar

I

were the strictest ever in some

respects.

During the 1930s the attention of Congressmen was turned to threats of extor-

tion and kidnapping and attacks on religious groups; they looked to the Post Office

Department for protection against these dangers.

By

the time war broke out in Europe in 1939 the federal government was

exercising substantial police power for the protection of the health and morals of

citizens. The

lam

operated directly on individuals and were based on the taxation

and interstate commerce clauses of the Constitution.

The Johnson

as

well

as

the Kennedy administrations, explains Fowler, opposed

the screening of Communist political propaganda.

So

ended

a

practice which the

Post Office Department had enjoyed

off

and on

for

tsventy-five years. This had

becn

a

most controversial nonmailable category. During most of the period the

department had withheld the mail on the basis of an executive order. Only during

the last three ycars had the department been specifically ordered by the Congress

to

carry

out such

a

practice. This supported the dissenting opinion of the Court

in 1921 which said that “the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free

speech

as

the right to

use

our tongue.”

Fowler has done a fine job in examining

a

complicated area. She knows her

subject well and offers the reader an authoritative and comprehensive picture

of

how and why the concept of “unmailable” has long been

a

major part of Post

Office concern.

If

the book sometimes reads

a

bit like an academic study more

than

a

monograph for general use, the fault is only partially that of the author.

The topic lends itself to

a

complex historical-governmental .investigation. Never-

theless, the author has fully accomplished her purpose, whlch is to esamine the

interactions of the United States Post Office, the Congress and what constitutcs

unmailability. This is

a

valuable and balanced study of an important topic which

has often been avoided by historians who seek a more exiting if

less

significant

subject.

CHESTER

11‘.

HANDLEMAN

Rrorwnrd

Coniiiiwzity

College

The

Subsidized

Muse:

Public

Support

for

the

Arts

in

the

United

States.

By

DICK

NETZER.

(Cambridge: Cambridge

-

University Press,

1978.

Pp.

289, $14.95.)

Let me acknowledge immediately that Dick Netzer’s

The

Subsidized

Ailuse

is

an invaluable contribution

to

the public policy literature. More important, it is the

best book to date on the subject of public policy and the arts in the United States.

It

is not that the book is without problems;

I

have reservations about some of the

data and the assumptions used in the analysis.

Nor

am

I

always

in agreement with

the conclusions that Netzer draw concerning some of the alleged ill-effects of