United States v. Moore

• Decision Date: 22 March 1904
• Docket Number: 3,262.
• Citation: 129 F. 159
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MOORE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

129 F. 159

UNITED STATES v. MOORE.

No. 3,262.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division.

March 22, 1904

William Warner, U.S. Dist. Atty.

C. D Corum and J. G. Slate, for defendant.

PHILLIPS District Judge.

The defendant stands indicted under section 3893, Rev. St. U.S 1 Supp.Rev.St.p. 621 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2658), for writing and placing, or causing to be placed in the post office of the United States at Jefferson City, Mo., an obscene, lewd, and lascivious letter, of an indecent character. The letter is in words and figures as follows:

'October 7, 1903.

'Dear Mrs. Thomas: I know you will be surprised to get this letter but I hope it will be a glad surprise. I hope it will come to you as a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day, I do not know you personally, but I have heard you spoken of by a friend of ours. I have been wanting to meet you, but so far have failed. I have taken this method of trying to get acquainted with you. I don't know whether my suggestion will meet with your approval or not, are whether you will want to meet me or not. If you do and will do as I tell you, we can meet each other and no one will ever know it. And we can pass some pleasant afternoons together. There is an old lady by the name of Mrs. Willard that keeps rooms to rent for such meetings. She lives West of Elston House up stairs on the first floor over the book bindery. Go up the stairs between the book bindery and the Saloon. Tell her that you have a 'gentleman friend' that you want to meet there. Say twice a week and that he is alright, and will treat her right. I have never been at her place but I know some parties that go there and they tell me it is all o.k. I want to meet you there at about 3 o'clock Thursday afternoon. You go about 2:30 and talk to the old lady and get on the good side of her. I want you to be sitting at the front window with your hat on, so I will know that you are there and that you want to see me. I will come up on the opposite side of the street and will tip my hat so you will know it is me coming, and you can meet me at the top of the stairs. This is all straight goods. And I will be a good friend to you. If you cannot go on Thursday afternoon, go Friday. But I will look for you Thursday. Will not sign my name. Will tell you all about myself when I see you.

A friend.

'Don't fail me.'

The defendant has demurred to the indictment on the ground that, the letter being admitted, it does not come within the purview of the statute. Reliance for this contention is predicated of the ruling in United States v. Lamkin (C.C.) 73 F. 459. The correctness of the ruling in that case can be conceded without affecting the validity of this indictment. The character of the letters upon which that indictment was based is materially different from the letter in question. But the reasoning of the learned judge in his opinion in that case does not wholly accord with my view of the statute. The trend of the opinion, if I read it aright, is that unless the language employed in the letter is per se coarse, obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent, although it is discernible on the face of the letter that it was written for the immoral purpose of inviting and stimulating illicit intercourse with a woman, it is not within the denunciation of the statute. It may be conceded that the forbidden character of the book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, etc., is to be found on its face. If the terms employed do not, in and of themselves, reasonably convey the suggestion of obscenity, lewdness, or lasciviousness, they cannot be eked out by evidence aliunde; that is to say, the court cannot, with strained eyes, read into the letter a hidden purpose its language does not naturally import. But it is as equally true that the obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent character of the writing is not to be made to depend upon the fact that the language employed must be coarse, blunt, and bald. Language is a vehicle of thought. 'Chaste words may be applied so as to be understood in an obscene sense by every one who hears them. ' Edgar v. McCutchen, 9 Mo. 768. Words, abstractly considered, may be free from vulgarism, yet they may, by reason of the context, manifest to the intelligent apprehension the most impure thoughts, and may arouse a libidinous passion more effectually in the mind of a modest woman than the coarse vernacular of the bawd and the pimp. The poison of the asp may lie beneath the honeyed tongue, just as a beautiful flower may contain a deadly odor. The statute does not say that every book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, etc., containing obscene, lewd, or lascivious language, is prohibited to the use of the mails; but it is the 'indecent character,' obscene, lewd, or lascivious in its nature and import, against which the statute is leveled. In other words, it is the effect of the language employed, conveying obscene, lewd, or lascivious suggestions, tainted with immorality and impurity, which is struck at by the statute.

Judge Thayer, in United States v. Clarke (D.C.) 38 F. 732, in discussing this statute, when it was directed only against the admission to the United States mails of books, pamphlets, pictures, papers, writings, and prints, said:

...