The second day in the obscenity trial of Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer opened yesterday with a strange request from a defense lawyer.

The request came early in the morning from attorney Ephraim London, the New York lawyer who represents both Miller and the publishers of the book, Grove Press, Inc. London asked permission to withdraw from the case on behalf of Grove Press' president, Barney Rosset, but continue in the proceedings as Miller's representative.

London said that Rosset did not agree with his conduct of the defense.

Obscenity Charge Irrelevant

In a statement read by London, Rosset called the issue of Tropic of Cancer's obscenity irrelevant. The real issue is "whether Henry Miller wrote as a serious artist and produced a work of literary merit." London said he agreed with Rosset "in principle," but felt that he should be allowed to present the defense as he saw it. In effect, Rosset was saying that the case ought to rest solely on Grove Press' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

While agreeing with Rosset that "any law purporting to suppress a book is unconstitutional," London was nonetheless prepared to defend Tropic of Cancer against the Attorney General's charge.

Judge Lewis Goldberg '11 refused to grant London's request, saying that the lawyer could not withdraw in the middle of a trial. So, for the rest of the proceedings, the New York counsel will represent--as before--both Grove Press and Miller.

On the first day in court, Assistant Attorney General Leo Sontag Ll.B. '48 had rested the Commonwealth's case with a presentation of Tropic as his prime exhibit. Sontag feels that he needs no witnesses to establish the book's obscenity. Thus the trial consists almost entirely of examination and cross-examination of the defense's witnesses.

Morton Bloomfield, professor of English and an authority on linguistics, was first on the stand yesterday. Where the two witnesses on the previous day had testified as to Tropic's literary merit, Bloomfield was there to discuss Miller's use of "four-letter-words."

London's intent in bringing Bloomfield before the court was to prove that there are "meaningless and irrational" social conventional about use of some words.

Words of Latin and French derivation referring to the sex act and bodily organs are acceptable in English. Bloomfield testified, but words of Angio-Saxon origin with identical meanings are tabu. He also said that certain words common to lower social classes are slowly becoming more acceptable in modern literature.

Mrs. Judy L. Rosenblith, a social psychologist connected with the University, testified briefly. The defense had wanted her to talk about a study she made of books and magazines sold in the Boston area. Judge Goldberg, however, ruled that the state of contemporary community standards in such matters was not subject for expert testimony.

(Justice Brennan's famous definition of obscenity in the Roth case referred to the "average person applying contemporary community standards.")

Robert W. Haney '56, teaching fellow in General Education, and a Unitarian minister at the First Church in Boston, also took the stand briefly.

The court adjourned with only one witness remaining, and today the final arguments of both sides will be given.