Bernarr Macfadden v. United States, No. 14

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Moody
• Citation: 213 U.S. 288,53 L.Ed. 801,29 S.Ct. 490
• Parties: BERNARR MACFADDEN v. UNITED STATES. riginal
• Docket Number: No. 14,O
• Decision Date: 12 April 1909

213 U.S. 288 29 S.Ct. 490 53 L.Ed. 801 BERNARR MACFADDEN

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 14, Original. Submitted April 5, 1909. Decided April 12, 1909.

Mr. Henry M. Earle for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 288-290 intentionally omitted]

Page 290

Solicitor General Bowers for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 290-291 intentionally omitted]

Page 291

Mr. Justice Moody delivered the opinion of the court:

The petitioner, Bernarr Macfadden, was indicted in the dis-

Page 292

trict court of the United States for the district of New Jersey for mailing obscene literature, in violation of § 3893 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2658). He pleaded not guilty, and upon trial before a jury was found guilty.

Various questions of law arose in the course of the trial, which need not be stated.

After the evidence was concluded, the petitioner presented to the presiding judge many requests for instructions to the jury, which were refused, under exception. For the purposes of this case four only need be referred to, and they summarily. The judge was requested to rule that the statute under which the indictment was returned was unconstitutional (a) because it abridged the freedom of the press; (b) because it was uncertain and created no general rule of conduct, and therefore the indictment was without due process of law; (c) because it was an ex post facto law; (d) because it delegated legislative power to the court or jury.

There was a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled. Thereupon judgment was entered, and the petitioner sued out a writ of error to the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. That court affirmed the judgment.

After a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner made application to one of the justices of this court for a writ of error, directed to the circuit court of appeals. The question of the right of the petitioner to such a writ of error has been referred to the full court, and, by direction of the court, briefs on the part of the United States and the petitioner have been filed and considered.

The object of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 488), was to distribute the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court between it and the newly-created circuit courts of appeal, and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit courts. The first necessary step in this undertaking was to determine in what cases appeals (using the word in its broader sense) might be taken directly to this court. This was done in § 5, which is as follows:

Page 293

'Sec. 5. That appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts or from the existing circuit courts direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases:

'In any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision.

'From the final sentences and decrees in prize causes.

'In cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

'In any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States.

'In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question.

'In any case in which the Constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States.'

Clause 3 of this section has been amended (act of January 20, 1897, 29 Stat. at L. 492, chap. 68, U. S. Comp Stat. 1901, p. 556), by striking out the words 'or otherwise infamous.'

Assuming, without decision, that the constitutional questions were real and substantial, it is clear that a writ of error might have been sued out originally directly from this court under clause 5. Loeb v. Columbia Twp. 179 U. S. 472, 45 L. ed. 280, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174. But this was not done, and, by the appeal to the circuit court of appeals, the right of direct appeal here was lost. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359, 41 L. ed. 745, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 343.

Section 6 of the act provides that the circuit courts of appeal shall exercise appellate jurisdiction 'in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act;' and the fact that there were in the case questions which would have warranted a direct appeal to this court...