[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-323685-105":59,"doc-detail-323685-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-monumental-decision-of-the-united-states-district-court-rendered-december-6-1933-by-hon-john-m-woolsey-lifting-the-ban-on-ulysses","THE MONUMENTAL DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RENDERED DECEMBER 6, 1933, BY HON. JOHN M. WOOLSEY LIFTING THE BAN ON “ULYSSES.”","","A legal opinion and related materials document a United States District Court case addressing the seizure, forfeiture, and confiscation of the book “Ulysses” by James Joyce. The United States sought forfeiture under Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930, arguing obscenity under the statute. Cross motions led to dismissal of the libel by Hon. John M. Woolsey, denying the government’s request and allowing the entry of a dismissal decree without costs, followed by discussion of the procedure and context of the book’s literary treatment.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":15,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/literature/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-monumental-decision-of-the-united-states-district-court-rendered-december-6-1933-by-hon-john-m-woolsey-lifting-the-ban-on-ulysses/323685/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-monumental-decision-of-the-united-states-district-court-rendered-december-6-1933-by-hon-john-m-woolsey-lifting-the-ban-on-ulysses/323685.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Clementine","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the legal basis for the U.S. government’s attempt to seize “Ulysses”?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The government brought a libel under Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930, relying on the Tariff Act’s obscenity standard to claim the book was not importable and was subject to seizure and destruction.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the court decide regarding forfeiture and destruction?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The motion to dismiss the libel was granted, and the government’s motion for a decree of forfeiture and destruction was denied.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why did the opinion discuss procedure instead of a jury trial?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The parties waived a jury trial and agreed the Court could decide the questions of law and fact on cross motions, with the decree entered as if after trial, which was viewed as especially appropriate given the book’s length and difficulty.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},323685,1791336974,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":14,"category_name":15,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},1374391974564,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/14000253aa45c000a9e?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779874745381141002","AARYGROVE COLLEGE LIBRAR  \nDETROIT,MICHIGAN  \nPLEASE DO NOT REMOVE  \nThis is Volume 9,issue 7 of THE  \npublished by The Great Books Foundation  \nMAR 4-58  \n\"I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state,and all daylong and in all places am always fastening upon you,arousing andpersuading and reproaching you...”Socrates'Apology  \n# THE MONUMENTAL DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RENDEREDDECEMBER 6,1933,BY HON.JOHN M.WOOLSEY LIFTING THE BAN ON“ULYSSES.”\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  \nUnited States of America,LibelantV.  \nOne Book called “Ulysses,”Random House,Inc.,Claimant  \nOn cross motions for a decree in alibel of confiscation,supplemented bya stipulation—hereinafter described—brought by the United States againstthe book“Ulysses”by James Joyce,under Section 305 of the Tariff Act of1930,Title 19 United States Code,Sec-tion 1305,on the ground that the bookis obscene within the meaning of thatSection,and,hence,is not importableinto the United States,but is subject toseizure,forfeiture and confiscation anddestruction.  \nUnited States Attorney—by Samuel  \nC.Coleman,Esq.,and Nicholas Atlas,Esq.,of counsel—for the United States,in support of motion for a decree of for-feiture,and in opposition to motion fora decree dismissing the libel.  \nMessrs.Greenbaum,Wolff &Ernst—by Morris L.Ernst,Esq.,and Alex-ander Lindey,Esq.,of counsel—attor-neys for claimant Random House,Inc.,in support of motion for a decree dis-missing the libel,and in opposition tomotion for a decree of forfeiture.WOOLSEY,J:  \nThe motion for a decree dismissingthe libel herein is granted,and,conse-quently,of course,the Government'smotion for a decree of forfeiture anddestruction is denied.  \nAccordingly a decree dismissing thelibel without costs may be entered here-in.  \n I.The practice followed in this case  \nReprinted from the Modern Libraryedition of \"Ulysses,\"by James Joyce,courtesy Random House,Inc.Copyright1946 by Nora Joseph Joyce.  \n)  \nOPINION A.110-59  \nis in accordance with the suggestionmade by me in the case of United Statesv.One Book Entitled “Contraception,”51 F.(2d)525,and is as follows:  \nAfter issue was joined by the filingof the claimant's answer to the libel forforfeiture against “Ulysses,”a stipula-tion was made between the UnitedStates Attorney's office and the attor-neys for the claimant providing:  \n1.That the book“Ulysses”shouldbe deemed to have been annexed to andto have become part of the libel just asif it had been incorporated in its en-tirety therein.  \n2.That the parties waived their rightto a trial by jury.  \n3.That each party agreed to movefor decree in its favor.  \n4.That on such cross motions theCourt might decide all the questionsof law and fact involved and render ageneral finding thereon.  \n5.That on the decision of such mo-tions the decree of the Court might beentered as if it were a decree after trial.  \nIt seems to me that a procedure ofthis kind is highly appropriate in libelsfor the confiscation of books such asthis.It is an especially advantageousprocedure in the instant case becauseon account of the length of “Ulysses”and the difficulty of reading it,a jurytrial would have been an extremely un-satisfactory,if not an almost impossi-ble,method of dealing with it.  \nII.I have read “Ulysses”once in itsentirety and I have read those passagesof which the Government particularly  \nEric Gill  \nDesign for spine  \nMerschel Collection  \n# ULYSSES\n\nJAMES JOYCELetters cut by Eric GillMerschel Collection  \ncomplains several times.In fact,formany weeks,my spare time has beendevoted to the consideration of the de-cision which my duty would require meto make in this matter.  \nthings about him,but also in a penum-bral zone residua of past impressions,some recent and some drawn up by as-sociation from the domain of the sub-conscious.He shows how each of theseimpressions affects the life and behav-ior of the character which he is de-scribing.  \n\"Ulysses\"is not an easy book to reador to understand","cbCaicUfWC4L5iZZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicUfWC4L5iZZ","pdf",774506,"English","# The Monumental Decision\n## Motions and decree\n## Procedure in the libel","[{\"question\":\"What was the legal basis for the U.S. government’s attempt to seize “Ulysses”?\",\"answer\":\"The government brought a libel under Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930, relying on the Tariff Act’s obscenity standard to claim the book was not importable and was subject to seizure and destruction.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the court decide regarding forfeiture and destruction?\",\"answer\":\"The motion to dismiss the libel was granted, and the government’s motion for a decree of forfeiture and destruction was denied.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the opinion discuss procedure instead of a jury trial?\",\"answer\":\"The parties waived a jury trial and agreed the Court could decide the questions of law and fact on cross motions, with the decree entered as if after trial, which was viewed as especially appropriate given the book’s length and difficulty.\"}]","THE MONUMENTAL DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RENDERED DECEMBER 6, 1933, BY HON. JOHN M. WOOLSEY LIFTING THE BAN ON “ULYSSES.” | PDF",1789965877,12]