United States v. One Book, Entitled" Contraception"
Decision Date | 16 July 1931 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ONE BOOK, ENTITLED "CONTRACEPTION," by MARIE C. STOPES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Morton Baum, of New York City, of counsel; and Walter R. Eaton, of New York City, solicitor to the Collector of the Port of New York, as amicus curiæ), in support of the motion for a decree of forfeiture.
Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst, of New York City (Alexander Lindey, of New York City, of counsel), in support of motion for a decree dismissing the libel.
The motion to dismiss the libel herein is granted.
The motion for a decree of forfeiture is, consequently, denied.
I. This is a libel in rem brought under title 19, U. S. C., § 1305 (19 USCA § 1305), for the forfeiture of the book "Contraception," written by Dr. Marie C. Stopes, on the ground that it falls within the exclusion of that statute.
II. At the time of the argument the counsel for the respective parties submitted to me a stipulation providing that the book "Contraception" should be deemed annexed as an exhibit to the libel, that the words "by United States mails" should be stricken from article 2 of the libel, that trial by jury, provided for in title 19, U. S. C., § 1305, on forfeiture proceedings thereunder be waived, and that the issues involved herein should be raised and presented before me on a motion by the claimant to dismiss the libel, and by the libelant for a decree of forfeiture thereon.
The provisions of the statute involved, title 19, U. S. C., § 1305, in so far as they are here relevant, are as follows:
The act further provides for forfeiture proceedings as follows:
III. The contention here made by the claimant that the act just quoted is unconstitutional on the ground that it interferes with the freedom of the press is sufficiently answered by my opinion in the case of United States v. One Obscene Book, entitled "Married Love," 48 F. (2d) 821, 822.
IV. There is not involved here, however, as the claimant urges, and as there was in the case of the book "Married Love," any possible question of res adjudicata, for the book "Contraception," so far as I am aware, is now for the first time libeled in a federal court to test the question of its admissibility under the section of the statutes above quoted.
It is quite true...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Gordon
... ... filthy, indecent or disgusting book, magazine, pamphlet, ... newspaper, storypaper, paper, ... Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446 (1896); ... United States v ... ...
-
Parmelee v. United States
...2 Cir., 72 F.2d 705; United States v. One Obscene Book Entitled "Married Love", S.D.N.Y., 48 F.2d 821; United States v. One Book Entitled "Contraception", S. D.N.Y., 51 F.2d 525); tending to corrupt the morals of youth or to lower the standards of right and wrong, specifically as to the sex......
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 33043
...39 F.2d 564, 76 A.L.R. 1092; United States v. One Obscene Book Entitled 'Married Love', D.C., 48 F.2d 821; United States v. One Book Entitled 'Contraception', D.C., 51 F.2d 525; United States v. One Book Called 'Ulysses', D.C., 5 F.Supp. 182, affirmed, United States v. One Book Entitled Uly......
-
State v. Nelson
... ... Lee & Co., Inc., 2 ... Cir., 45 F.2d 103; Davis v. United States, 6 ... Cir., 62 F.2d 473; United States v. One ... 400; United ... States v. One Book, D.C., 51 F.2d 525. It was held, ... however, that such of ... ...