United States v. Loftis
| Decision Date | 11 July 1882 |
| Citation | 12 F. 671 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LOFTIS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
James F. Watson, for plaintiff.
George H. Williams and George Durham, for defendant.
DEADY D.J.
The defendant is accused by the information in this case of 'the crime of depositing for mailing and delivery in the post-office of the United States a publication of an indecent character, and a letter containing indecent and scurrilous epithets, contrary to section 3893 of the Revised Statutes committed by knowingly mailing at Rainier, in a sealed envelope, postage paid, and addressed to 'Mr. Joish Way Thayer, Oregon City, Oregon,' a certain obscene and indecent writing and publication' in words and figures as herein set forth.
The defendant demurs to the information because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime, and upon the argument thereof made the point that however the act of the defendant may be characterized by the general charge in the information, its true character must be ascertained from the particular facts stated therein and that it appeared therefrom that the alleged indecent 'publication' was only a private, sealed letter, and not a publication at all, or anything within the purview of the statute; and it was also suggested in support of the demurrer that the language contained in the letter, however filthy, was not 'obscene, lewd, or lascivious.'
The legislation upon this subject, it appears, commenced with section 148 of the post-office act of July 8, 1872, (17 St 302,) which provided 'that no obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication of a vulgar or indecent character, or any letter upon the envelope of which or postal card upon which scurrilous epithets may have been written or printed, or disloyal devices printed or engraven, shall be carried in the mail. ' By the act of March 3, 1873, (17 St. 599,) said section 148 was amended so as to omit the word 'vulgar,' and all mention of 'disloyal devices,' and to include 'lewd or lascivious' books, etc., as well as 'obscene ones, and a 'paper' as well as a 'picture or print;' and the word 'indecent' was added to the word 'scurrilous,' in describing the epithets prohibited on a postal card or the envelope of a letter.
A new clause was also added, prohibiting the transportation in the mails of any 'article or thing designed or intended' to prevent conception or procure abortion, or 'for any indecent or immoral use or nature,' or any communication or notice giving any information where, how, or of whom or by what means any such things may be obtained or made.
This section, as thus amended, became section 3893 of the Revised Statutes, which was again amended by the act of July 12, 1876, (19 St. 90,) so as to add the word 'writing' to the category of non-mailable books, etc., and in regard to such letters and postal cards substituted the following: 'And every letter, upon the envelope of which, or postal card upon which, indecent, obscene, lewd, or lascivious epithets, terms, or language may be written or printed,' is hereby declared to be non-mailable matter.
The punishment for mailing such matter is a fine not less than $100 nor more than $500, or imprisonment at hard labor not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both.
It is admitted that the language used in this letter is indecent. Indeed, it is grossly so. The term is said to signify more than indelicate and less than immodest-- to mean something unfit for the eye or ear. Worcest. Dict. And I think it is obscene, also. This latter word has a wide range in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis, In re
...with a strong feeling for the nuances of meaning, says that the word means more than 'indelicate' and less than 'immodest.' (United States v. Loftis, D.C., 12 F. 671.) It is a pity that he adds: 'And I think it is obscene, also.' (Ibid., p. On the other hand the Supreme Court of Louisiana i......
-
Parmelee v. United States
...the mails statute was amended to read "no obscene, lewd or lascivious" book. Act of March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 599. See United States v. Loftis, D.C.Or., 12 F. 671, 672. It seems clear that the provision of the Tariff Act against the importation of "any obscene book" might be given a broader a......
-
Jacob Hoffmann Brewing Co. v. McElligott
...and marks each with the common quality indicated.' A prior case under the same statute, decided by Judge Deady, was United States v. Loftis (D.C.) 12 F. 671. It was there ' * * * Speaking generally, this letter is a writing; but to bring it within this clause of the statute it must be also ......
-
United States v. Baumgartner
...at by a process of thought made use of by Judge Deady of the Oregon district, in a strikingly similar situation, in United States v. Loftis (D.C.) 12 F. 671, 673. 'The general phrase with which the enumeration ends * * impliedly asserts that the things before enumerated' are to be of an int......