Bates Guild Co v. Henry Payne
Decision Date | 11 April 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 373,373 |
Citation | 24 S.Ct. 595,194 U.S. 106,48 L.Ed. 894 |
Parties | BATES & GUILD CO., Appts. , v. HENRY C. PAYNE, Postmaster General |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William S. Hall and Holmes Conrad for appellant.
Messrs. John G. Johnson and Henry H. Glassie for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:
This was a bill to compel the recognition by the Postmaster General of the right of the plaintiff corporation to have a periodical publication, known as 'Masters in Music,' received and transmitted through the mails as matter of the second class, and to enjoin defendant from enforcing an order, theretofore made by him, denying it entry as such. This case took the same course as the preceding ones. 31 Wash. L. Rep. 395.
The first number of Masters in Music was issued in January, 1903, and an application was immediately made to the Postmaster General for its admission to the mails as second-class mail matter. The application was denied, and plaintiff immediately, and before the issue of another number, filed this bill. The publication purports to be a 'monthly magazine,' salable at 20 cents per number, and to subscribers at $2 a year. The first number is devoted to the works of Mozart and contains a portrait, a biography of four pages, an essay of ten pages upon his art, and thirty-two pages of his music. The preliminary page contained a notice to the effect that
The Postmaster General placed his refusal to allow this magazine to be transmitted as second-class mail matter upon the ground that each number was complete in itself; had no connection with other numbers save in the circumstance that they all treated of masters in music, and that these issues were in fact sheet music disguised as a periodical, and should be classified as third-class mail matter.
Conceding the principle established in the two cases just decided to be that the fact that books published at stated intervals and in consecutive numbers do not thereby become periodicals, even though in other respects they conform to the requirements of § 14 [ ], cases may still arise where the classification of a certain publication may be one of doubt. Such is this case. But we think that, although the question is largely one of law, determined by a comparison of the exhibit with the statute, there is some discretion left in the Postmaster General with respect to the classification of such publications as mail matter, and that the exercise of such discretion ought not to be interfered with unless the court be clearly of opinion that it was wrong. The Postmaster General is charged with the duty of examining these publications and of determining to which class of mail matter they properly belong; and we think his decision should not be made the subject of judicial investigation in every case where one of the parties thereto is dissatisfied. The consequence of a different rule would be that the court might be flooded by appeals of this kind to review the decision of the Postmaster General in every individual instance. In the case of American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94, 104, 47 L. ed. 90, 94, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33, the Postoffice authorities were held to have acted beyond their authority in rejecting all correspondence with the plaintiff upon the subject of the treatment of diseases by mental action; but while it was said in that case that the question involved was a legal one, it was intimated that something must be left to the discretion of the Postmaster General.
It has long been the settled practice of this court in land cases to treat the findings of the Land Department upon questions of fact as conclusive, although such proceedings involve to a certain extent, the exercise of judicial power. As was said in Burfenning v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 163 U. S. 321, 323, 41 L. ed. 175, 176, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1018, 1019: 'Whether, for instance, a certain tract is swamp land or not, saline land or not, mineral land or not, presents a question of fact not resting on record, dependent on oral testimony; and it cannot be doubted that the decision of the Land Department, one way or the other, in reference to these questions, is conclusive, and not open to relitigation in the courts, except in those cases of fraud, etc., which permit any determination to be reexamined' (citing cases). See also Johnson v. Drew, 171 U. S. 93, 43 L. ed. 88, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 800; Gardner v. Bonestell, 180 U. S. 362, 45 L. ed. 574, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399.
But there is another class of cases in which the rule is somewhat differently, and perhaps more broadly, stated, and that is, that where Congress has committed to the head of a department certain duties requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, his action thereon, whether it involve questions of law or fact, will not be reviewed by the courts unless he has exceeded his authority or this court should be of opinion that his action was clearly wrong. In the early case of Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 10 L. ed. 599, it was said that the official duties of the head of an executive department, whether imposed by act of Congress or resolution, are not mere ministerial duties; and, as was said by this court in the recent case of United States ex rel. Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 324, 47 L. ed. 1076, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 702:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub Co v. Burleson
...of law, has been repeatedly decided. Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 U. S. 53, 60, 33 Sup. Ct. 6, 57 L. Ed. 119; Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106, 24 Sup. Ct. 595, 48 L. Ed. 894; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497, 24 Sup. Ct. 789, 48 L. Ed. 1092; Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan,......
-
Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc.
...322 U.S. at 130-131, 64 S.Ct. 851; Gray v. Powell, 314 U.S. 402, 62 S.Ct. 326, 86 L.Ed. 301 (1941); Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 109-110, 24 S.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894 (1904); Jaffe, supra, n. 4, ch. The Secretary agrees that the issue of a general contractor's joint responsibilit......
-
Switchmen Union of North America v. National Mediation Board
...252, 69 L.Ed. 561; United States v. Babcock, supra. We need not determine the full reach of that rule. See Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 24 S.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894; Houston v. St. Louis Inde- pendent Packing Co., 249 U.S. 479, 39 S.Ct. 332, 63 L.Ed. 717. But its application here......
-
Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Wis.
...123 Wis. 61, 100 N. W. 1048;Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316, 23 Sup. Ct. 689, 47 L. Ed. 1074;Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106, 24 Sup. Ct. 595, 48 L. Ed. 894;San Diego L. Co. v. Nat. City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154;San Diego L. Co. v. Jasper, 189 ......
-
Interring the Immigration Rule of Lenity
...241(f) as a protection, mainly, for Mexican aliens who were not subject to the quota restrictions). [169] Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1904); see id. at 109 (citing, inter alia, Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 497 [170] United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 382 ......
-
The Importance of Negotiated Rulemaking to the No Child Left Behind Act
...he has exceeded his authority or this court should be of opinion that his action was clearly wrong." (quoting Bates and Guild v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1904))). 121. Harter, supra note 117, at 7. 122. 123. Id. 124. Id. at 18-22 (describing the adversarial nature of APA rulemaking). 12......
-
Judging the Fed.
...the emergence of judicial deference to administrative agencies to cases in the early 1900s, including Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106 (1904)); see also Cotnm'r v. Chi. Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 16 (1932) (alluding to the "familiar principle . . . that great weight is attached t......
-
THE APA AS A SUPER-STATUTE: DEEP COMPROMISE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NOTICE-AND-COMMENT RULEMAKING.
...892, 893 & n.4 (1891). For other cases supporting the broader statement of the canon, see, for example, Bates 8c Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1904); United States v. Gilmore, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 330, 333 (293) See Bamzai, supra note 276, at 966-67; see also Bates & Guild ......