United States v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 20 May 1886 |
| Citation | 27 F. 682 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. THOMAS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
J. B Harris, U.S. Atty., for the United States.
J. S Sexton, for the motion.
The indictment against the defendant in substance charges that the defendant did unlawfully and knowingly (on a day named) deposit in a post-office (naming it) a certain obscene, lewd and lascivious writing, addressed to a female (naming her) at a certain other post-office, (naming it,) and which said writing was then and there inclosed in a letter envelope contrary to the provisions of section 3893 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended by the act of congress approved July 12, 1876, and against the peace and dignity of the United States. The obscenity of the writing is given as a reason for not setting out the writing in the indictment.
The defendant moves to quash the indictment for the reason that it, being alleged that the writing was inclosed in a letter envelope, is not embraced in the act of congress alleged to have been violated, and that the indictment charges no criminal offense. Whether it does or nor is the only question to be decided.
Considering the purpose of the statute, which evidently is to prevent the United States mail from becoming a vehicle for the transmission of obscene and lewd books, pictures, and writings, I am satisfied that such a writing as the one described in the indictment is embraced in the statute, though inclosed in a letter envelope and mailed; and would so hold if the statute were now to be construed for the first time; but it has been passed upon a number of times by judges of high character, and long experience, and some diversity of opinion.
The decision of Judge TURNER, of the Western district of Texas, in the case of U.S. v. Comerford, reported in the Criminal Law Magazine, 465, S.C. 25 F. 902, is mainly relied upon to sustain the motion. This decision is in direct conflict with that made in the case of U.S. v. Gaylord, 17 F. 438. The opinion of Judge DRUMMOND in this case, to my mind, is unanswerable. This case arose in the Southern district court of Illinois. Judge TREAT of that court, one among the oldest, as well as ablest, of our district judges, held that the statute referred to embraced letters or writings inclosed in letter envelopes addressed in the usual way with other letters. On writ of error from the circuit court, this ruling was sustained by Judge DRUMMOND, the circuit judge, whose opinions on all questions command the highest respect from the profession throughout the United States, and in which Justice HARLAN of the supreme court, assigned to that circuit, concurs.
If I had any doubt on the question, the concurrent opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Huggett
...the indictment, are U.S. v. Gaylord, 17 F. 438; U.S. v. Hanover, Id. 444; U.S. v. Britton, Id. 731; U.S. v. Morris, 18 F. 900; and U.S.v. Thomas, 27 F. 682. Those in the negative, and against the indictment, U.S. v. Williams, 3 Fed.Rep. 484; U.S. v. Loftis, 12 F. 671; U.S. v. Comerford, 25 ......
-
United States v. Martin
... ... Mathias, 36 F. 892. On the other hand, the following ... decisions held that private letters were embraced by the ... statute within the term 'writing:' U.S. v. Morris, 18 ... F. 900; U.S. v. Gaylord, 17 F. 438; U.S. v. Hanover, ... Id. 444; U.S. v. Britton, Id. 731; U.S ... v. Thomas, 27 F. 682. In this confused and conflicting ... condition of the decisions of the courts congress undertook, ... in the amended act of September 26, 1888, to legislate again ... upon this subject, and in the amended act inserted the word ... 'letter,' the omission of which in the former ... ...