Summary Information
Abstract
This collection contains records related to the career of Ephraim London, a
prominent attorney who specialized in censorship, publishing, and entertainment law.
At a Glance
| Bib ID: | 6260282 View CLIO record |
|---|
| Creator(s): | London, Ephraim. |
|---|
| Title: | Ephraim London
Papers,
1940-1975.
|
|---|
| Physical description: | 5.5 linear feet ( 11 archival document boxes).
|
|---|
| Language(s): | In English
|
|---|
| Access: |
This collection is located off-site. You will need to request this material at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance to use the collection in the Rare Book and
Manuscript Library Reading Room. Please consult the Rare Book and Manuscript Library
for further information.
This collection has no restrictions.
More information » |
|---|
Arrangement
Arrangement
This collection is arranged into five series and seven subseries:
Return to top
Description
Scope and Content
Ephraim London conducted many important First Amendment proceedings during his
career. This collection contains substantial records relating to two of his
best-known cases. It includes legal documents, clippings, correspondence, and
courtroom notes from his 1964 defense of Lenny Bruce, the comedian. This series
features letters between attorney and client, which follow the course of an
increasingly uneasy relationship. In 1961, London represented Grove Press in its
attempt to publish Henry Miller's
Tropic of Cancer.
This collection includes
correspondence, legal records, and trial notes from the case. It also features a
huge collection of newspaper and magazine clippings related to the topic, which
tracks the national debate on issues of censorship and obscenity during this period.
Beyond these two major cases, London's papers include records from his own research
into legal and philosophical questions of obscenity and free speech. There are also
files detailing his work on film censorship for Embassy Pictures during the early
1960s. At the time, local boards could request edits and prohibit movies from being
shown in their jurisdiction. It was London's job to get the films - often the work
of famed European auteurs - screened as they had been intended. Among other things,
the correspondence here tracks a running, and increasingly exasperated, dialogue
between the attorney and Kitty McMahon, of the Kansas State Board of Review, who
always demanded the highest standards of cinematic decorum for her constituency.
Another aspect of London's career is also well represented in this collection. For
years, he worked as an attorney for Simon and Schuster, the publishing company.
Through correspondence, financial statements, meeting minutes, and distribution and
sales contracts, his papers offer insights into the company's business practices
during the 1950s and 1960s. Simon and Schuster's negotiations with other publishers,
especially Pocket Books and Little Golden, are included in these papers. London was
also responsible for vetting individual books for possible instances of libel, and
handling any legal issues that arose after publication.
Records from other facets of London's work are absent from this collection. There is
little here about his defense of Fifth Amendment cases. None of his personal
writings, and few of the articles that he penned during his career, are present. The
Lenny Bruce and
Tropic of Cancer
cases are well documented, but London's other
major censorship cases are not represented.
Series I: Leonard Alfred Schneider (aka Lenny Bruce) v. People of the
State of New York, 1960-1967
Series I holds records from London’s defense of Lenny Bruce in 1964. Files of
correspondence consist of letters between attorneys, and also notes and
telegrams between the lawyers and the defendant. There are notes pertaining
to the defense witnesses, who included leading cultural figures. Also
present is courtroom testimony, as well as typed transcripts from some of
Bruce’s live performances. Legal documents track the case through the
decision and part of the appeals process, and follow the attorneys’ attempts
to recoup their fees, even after their client’s untimely death.
Series II: Attorney General of Massachusetts v. A Book Named
Tropic of Cancer,
1947-1964
Series II focuses on the uproar surrounding Grove Press’s attempt to publish
Tropic of Cancer
in 1961. Legal correspondence follows the development of
the case, and is highlighted by London’s attempts to find leading cultural
figures – including Jacques Barzun and Norman Mailer – to attest to the
literary merits of Miller’s controversial novel. The attorneys hired a
clipping service to record every mention of censorship in the nation’s
newspapers. Much of this series is dedicated to the copious results of this
effort. Hundreds of tear-sheets from around the country follow the public
attitudes toward obscenity and reveal a loud debate over the American
publication of
Tropic of Cancer.
The articles also follow local cases,
including trials in California and Texas, of booksellers charged with
selling obscene materials.
Series III: Censorship,1950s-1960s
Series III holds files relating to London’s long career working against censorship. This series is arranged in two subseries: Censorship Files, and Embassy Pictures.
Subseries III.1: Censorship Files,
1950s-1960s
These files from London’s law offices were not dedicated to a particular case, but included court documents, pamphlets, legislative reports, and unpublished studies related to the history of obscenity and censorship. Included here are transcripts from some of London’s appearances on radio and TV, in which he expresses his personal philosophy on First Amendment law.
Subseries III.2: Embassy Pictures, 1961-1964
This subseries consists of several slim files dedicated to some of the films distributed by Embassy Pictures during these years. London’s role was to help the movies clear local census boards. Most troublesome was the Kansas State Board of Review and its determined chairman, Kitty McMahon.
Series IV: Simon and Schuster, 1949-1973
Series IV focuses on London’s work for Simon and Schuster. As attorney for the publishing company he both drafted contracts for the business, and handled legal issues arising with individual books and authors.
Subseries IV.1: Contracts and Business, 1949-1973
These files have correspondence and meetings minutes related to the business transactions of the founding executives at Simon and Schuster: Richard L. Simon, M. Lincoln Schuster, and Leon Shimkin. Records include contracts, and drafts of contracts, related to several distribution and sales deals. An internal memo on contracts from the late 1950s maps out the company’s grand strategy for the following years.
Subseries IV.2: Authors and Books, 1960-1966
In these slim files, London deals with exigencies arising from the publication of individual books. In most cases, he was employed in vetting manuscripts for possible instances of libel.
Series V: General, 1940s-1975
This series is dedicated to London’s legal work that did not relate to issues of censorship.
Subseries V.1: Publishing, 1957-1970
These files consist of London’s publishing work that did not have to do with censorship, or his responsibilities at Simon and Schuster.
Subseries V.2: Entertainment, 1940s-1975
This subseries relates to London’s work for theater, film, and television clients. These cases mostly dealt with copyright and contract issues. The files on Bertolt Brecht contain several letters between the playwright and Eric Bentley, his translator, dating from the 1940s and 1950s. Several files here are dedicated to Samuel and Bella Spewack vs. Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, a case involving issues of television copyright protection.
Subseries V.3: Personal, 1961-1975
One small file in this subseries relates to London’s own work as an author.
Return to top
Using the Collection
Offsite
Access Restrictions
This collection is located off-site. You will need to request this material at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance to use the collection in the Rare Book and
Manuscript Library Reading Room. Please consult the Rare Book and Manuscript Library
for further information.
More information and link to off-site request form
This collection has no restrictions.
Restrictions on Use
Single photocopies may be made for research purposes. Permission to publish material
from the collection must be requested from the Curator of Manuscripts/University
Archivist, Rare Book and Manuscript Library (RBML). The RBML approves permission to
publish that which it physically owns; the responsibility to secure copyright
permission rests with the patron.
Preferred Citation
Identification of specific item; Date (if known); Ephraim London Papers, Box and
Folder; Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University Library.
Finding aid in repository; folder level control.
Return to top
About the Finding Aid / Processing Information
Columbia University Libraries. Rare Book and
Manuscript Library; machine readable finding aid created by Columbia University
Libraries Digital Library Program Division
Processing Information
This collection was processed by Thai Jones (GSAS 2013). Finding aid written by Thai Jones, August 2007.
Machine readable finding aid generated from MARC-AMC source via XSLT
conversion November 7, 2008
Finding aid written in English.
2009-01-13
xml document instance created by Patrick Lawlor
2009-06-02
xml document instance created by Catherine N. Carson
Return to top
Subject Headings
The subject headings listed below are found in this collection. Links below allow searches at Columbia University through the Archival Collections Portal and through CLIO, the catalog for Columbia University Libraries, as well as ArchiveGRID, a catalog that allows users to search the holdings of multiple research libraries and archives.
All links open new windows.
Subjects
Return to top
History / Biographical Note
Biographical Note
A prominent defender of the First Amendment, Ephraim S.
London spent much of his career challenging conservative distinctions between art
and obscenity. He ranked among the nation's leading constitutional lawyers during
the 1950s and 1960s, when he litigated a series of major cases pushing for the end
of censorship in motion pictures. He also helped shepherd
Tropic of Cancer
to its
first American printing - 27 years after Henry Miller had finished writing it.
London defended Lenny Bruce, the most controversial comedian of the era. He argued
nine cases before the United States Supreme Court, and was successful each time. The
simple fact of his taking a case, a reporter for
Variety
wrote in 1963, was enough
“to indicate the importance attached to the subject.”
Confident in his expertise, London once told a judge in an
obscenity trial, “Now your honor, I must say that I speak with probably greater
experience than any other attorney in the United States on the question.” His
preference was to win cases on constitutional grounds, rather than on procedural
issues; thus, he could show that free speech, in even its least palatable forms, was
protected by the First Amendment. At times, his determination to litigate on
principles got him into trouble with his clients. Nevertheless, he remained firm. In
the courtroom - as well as through articles and speaking engagements - London
testified to his beliefs. “I consider censorship an affront,” he said during a
televised debate, “the assumption of censorship, the assumption of the censor, is
that the people can't be trusted to make judgments for themselves. I don't believe
that assumption is proper.”
London was born in Brooklyn, on June 17, 1911. Law was the
family calling. Both his parents, and a sister, were attorneys, as was his uncle -
Meyer London - one of only two Socialists ever elected to the United States
Congress. Ephraim graduated with a legal degree from New York University in 1934,
and began his career in the family firm, earning a salary of $12 a week. Five years
later, he married Pearl Levison. He served as a captain of anti-aircraft artillery
during World War Two; after the fighting, he investigated war crimes in Germany.
His first major First Amendment case involved
The
Miracle,
a Roberto Rosselini film about a woman who mistook her vagabond seducer
for St. Joseph. The movie was denounced by the Catholic Church in New York, and was
declared sacrilegious by the state censorship board. Representing Joseph Burstyn,
the movie's distributor, London took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1952,
the justices sided with the film; their ruling extended to movies, for the first
time, the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. Seven years later, London
came before the court once more. In this case he represented a French film
adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's
Lady Chatterley's Lover.
Again the justices sided
with him; ruling that a movie could not be banned simply because it expressed
immoral ideas.
In 1961, Grove Press prepared to publish
Tropic of Cancer
for the first time in the United States. Knowing legal challenges were certain to
follow, Grove's editor, Barney Rosset, retained London as counsel. The novel's
release did indeed create a national debate on issues of obscenity and artistry; it
also produced a surfeit of cases. Eventually, trials involving Miller's book would
reach the highest courts in six states. London was involved in the first case, a
civil action that he argued in Boston during September 1961. Up against an
unsympathetic judge, he concentrated on laying a foundation for appeal. Asking
leading cultural authorities - including Jacques Barzun and Norman Mailer - to
endorse the book, he hoped their testimony would prove that the novel did not merely
intend to arouse prurient interest, but was in fact a serious work with substantial
literary merit. As predicted, the first ruling went against Grove Press.
Unexpectedly, however, London would not have a chance to argue his case before the
Massachusetts high court. Rosset dismissed him shortly after the trial, citing
differences in legal strategy. London was not ready to compromise, a character trait
that would soon reappear to damage relations with his most famous client.
In April 1964, Lenny Bruce was arrested by police officers
just as he was going on stage at the Café Au Go Go in Greenwich Village. Charged
with indecency and “corruption of the morals of youth and others,” Bruce needed an
experienced First Amendment lawyer. He contacted London, who took the case. Arguing
the trial before three city judges, London used his familiar strategy of calling
expert witnesses to testify to the social and artistic relevance of the comedian's
routines. Sensing skeptical hostility from the bench, he expected a negative ruling,
and looked forward to success on appeal. Bruce - who had already suffered through
years of legal persecution - disagreed with this strategy, and threatened to
withhold payment when London ignored his suggestions. According to Martin Garbus, an
attorney who aided the defense, it had been obvious “right from the start” that the
two men “would not mix well.” And they did not. Soon after the trial, Bruce wired a
telegram that began, “Dear Ephram London [sic] you are fired.”
This was the second high-profile client to discharge him,
and London did not take it lightly. “Although I deeply resent your letter,” he
replied to Bruce, “I am glad it was sent. It relieves me of the obligation (self
imposed) of putting your interests before mine.” When the verdict came down -
guilty, as expected - some blamed the lawyers. Dick Schaap, of the
Herald Tribune,
thought Bruce should have been given more say in his defense. The attorneys had lost
the case for a general principle, instead of winning it on technical grounds. London
denied this. “It has always been my position,” he wrote in a letter to the
columnist, “that one establishes legal principles by winning individual cases. As I
told Lenny, I believe the real difference between us arose because I was determined
to win his case.”
There were certain other principles of the legal profession
to which London also adhered - collecting payment, for instance. One week after
being fired, he filed suit against his former client, seeking $13,958.83 in unpaid
fees and disbursements. This sum remained unpaid on August 3, 1966, when Lenny Bruce
died of a drug overdose in his Los Angeles home. “One last four-letter word for
Lenny,” Schaap wrote, “Dead. At forty.
That's
obscene.” At the time of his death,
Bruce “had less than $100.00 in cash, no life insurance and many creditors.” A year
later, the lawyers gave up trying to recoup their expenses.
London handled hundreds of censorship proceedings and
defended more than 70 films against charges of indecency; most of these cases were
conducted in the low courts of the land. City and state licensing boards could
demand edits or deletions in any movie that was to be screened in their
jurisdiction. Fighting these strictures was costly - a case that went to the Supreme
Court could cost a distributor around $75,000. No local censor was more censorious -
or, for the attorneys, more stubborn - than Kitty McMahon, chairman of the Kansas
State Board of Review. London had to handle her diplomatically. In the case of
Fellini's
8 1/2,
he was firm. “Mr. Fellini,” he wrote, “is recognized as one of the
world's greatest directors (you probably remember his film
La Strada
), and the
distributor cannot and Mr. Fellini will not agree to a change in his text.” At other
times, he was more conciliatory. Always, however, he remained mindful of the
importance of remaining “on good terms with Kitty.”
London kept his Socialist uncle's desk in his office, and
argued for principles other than free speech. Like other progressive attorneys of
his generation, he aided defendants against McCarthy-era excesses. In 1956, he
represented Dr. Harry Slochower, a professor at Brooklyn College who took the Fifth
rather than answering questions concerning his membership in the Communist Party.
The Supreme Court ruled for the professor, who was reinstated. These sorts of cases
were rarely remunerative. London's law partner, Helen Buttenwieser, an expert in
civil rights and family issues - and a member of the wealthy Lehman family - allowed
him the freedom to pursue causes that could not pay. When the firm defended Dr.
Robert A. Soblen, a convicted Soviet spy, Buttenwieser had to use $60,000 of her own
funds for bail. The money was then forfeited when Soblen fled to Israel on the eve
of his trial.
Not all of London's work involved constitutional issues.
Through the 1950s and 1960s, he worked for Simon and Schuster, handling publishing
contracts and vetting manuscripts for possible instances of libel. This business
relationship had a personal element; his wife's mother was married to M. Lincoln
Schuster, one of the company's founders. In the late 1960s, London also represented
Samuel and Bella Spewack, the playwrights, in a case related to the rights of
producers to rebroadcast live performances on television. “I believe the question is
an important one,” London wrote to the Dramatists Guild, “because of the present
practise of taping all performances of plays broadcast by commercial television
stations.”
His meticulousness, and his talents as a writer, made him a
formidable appellate lawyer. His appreciation for the scholarly aspects of legal
history was apparent in his two-volume book,
The World of Law,
which he described as
a “treasury of great writing about and in the law - short stories, plays, essays,
accounts, letters, opinions, pleas, transcripts of testimony - from Biblical times
to the present.” For years he taught a class at NYU Law School on literature and the
law.
Ephraim S. London died in 1990; he was 78 years old.
Return to top
 "Citation")
 "Bookmark / Permalink")
![[x]](javascript:toggle('citation','<img id=Icitation border=0 src=http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/images/cite.gif>','<img id=Icitation border=0 src=http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/images/cite.gif>','http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu')){kind=link}
![[x]](javascript:toggle('bookmark','<img id=Icitation border=0 src=http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/images/bookmark-cul.gif>','<img id=Ibookmark border=0 src=http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/images/bookmark-cul.gif>','http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu')){kind=link}