Straus v. Gilbert

Decision Date11 June 1968
Docket NumberNo. 68 Civ. 2271.,68 Civ. 2271.
PartiesNathan STRAUS, Plaintiff, v. Jacob H. GILBERT, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

David Levy, New York City, for plaintiff.

John M. Foley, New York City, for defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

MOTLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant, his agents, servants and/or employees from sending free pursuant to the franking privilege, 39 U.S.C. § 4161 et seq., a) any mail sent to postal patrons or residents of the 22nd Congressional District until such time as they become part of the 22nd Congressional District pursuant to state law (January 1, 1969); b) the Congressional Record unless it is reprinted exactly and without variation or additions; and c) the Congressional Record, or any part or reprint thereof, in which there has been inserted material primarily for the purpose of campaigning in the Democratic primary. The motion is denied.

Defendant is a member of Congress seeking reelection. Plaintiff is his opponent in the Democratic primary. Defendant has utilized the franking privilege to send three letters to

"Postal Patron—Local 22nd Congressional District Bronx, New York."

Each of the three letters mailed by defendant contained a letter reprinted from the Congressional Record. In all the type has been reset to be more legible. Two of the letters also contain photographs of Congressman Gilbert. One letter, the first, contains a covering letter introducing the Congressman to the recipient and offering assistance.

This court has jurisdiction over this controversy, it would appear, under 28 U.S.C. § 1339 which provides:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to the postal service."

The franking privilege is governed by acts regulating the postal service. Public Law 86-682, 74 Stat. 578.

Title 39 U.S.C. § 4163 provides that:

"Members of Congress may send as franked mail the Congressional Record, or any part thereof, or speeches or reports therein contained."

This statute should be dispositive of this controversy. This court does not read this statute as requiring exact duplication of the Congressional Record without variance. Neither do we believe that inserting a covering letter nor the addition of a picture removes the reprint from the ambit of the statute.

Insofar as the plaintiff would have this court prohibit the use of the frank on the Congressional Record containing material inserted for campaigning purposes,

a) the statute has no such limitation;

b) the letters here at issue do not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Common Cause v. Democratic National Committee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 27, 1971
    ...for violation of penal statutes regulating election procedures. In Rising v. Brown, 313 F.Supp. 824 (C.D.Cal.1970) and Straus v. Gilbert, 293 F.Supp. 214 (S.D. N.Y.1968) injunctive relief was granted to candidates for elective Federal office where their opponents were allegedly violating co......
  • Schiaffo v. Helstoski
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 19, 1972
    ...Act of Congress relating to the postal service." See Christian Beacon v. United States, 322 F.2d 512 (3d Cir. 1963); Straus v. Gilbert, 293 F.Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1968). Jurisdiction may also be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 insofar as a question concerning more than $10,000 arising under the all......
  • Schiaffo v. Helstoski
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 4, 1974
    ...F.Supp. 21 (1972); Bowie v. Williams, 351 F.Supp. 628 (E.D.Pa.1972); Rising v. Brown, 313 F.Supp. 824 (C.D.Cal.1970); Straus v. Gilbert, 293 F.Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 5 Note, Mootness on Appeal in the Supreme Court, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1672, 1674 6 See generally Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudi......
  • Bowie v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 20, 1972
    ...Williams' district informed as to his activities and opinions. Thus, there has been no abuse of the frank. See Strauss v. Gilbert, 293 F. Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1968).11 See also Hoellen v. Annunzio, 348 F.Supp. 305 (N.D.Ill., 1972), for a similar result as to a questionnaire mailed to a Congre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT