United States v. Warner
Decision Date | 16 January 1894 |
Docket Number | 690. |
Citation | 59 F. 355 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington, Northern Division |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. WARNER. |
Wm. H Brinker, U.S. Atty.
A. R Jones and C. W. Turner, for defendant.
The question raised by the demurrer to the indictment in this case is whether the sending by mail in a sealed envelope of a personal written communication from one individual to another is a crime, cognizable in this court. The indictment is founded upon section 3893, Rev. St., which, as amended by Act Sept. 26, 1886, (1 Supp. Rev. St. [2d Ed.] 621,) reads as follows:
* * *'
The supreme court of the United States in the case of U.S. v Chase, 135 U.S. 255, 10 S.Ct. 756, gave an authoritative interpretation to this law, as it stood previous to the amendatory act of 1888, as follows:
'In the statute under consideration, the word 'writing' is used as one of a group or class of words,--book, pamphlet, picture, paper, writing, print,--each of which is ordinarily and prima facie understood to be a publication; and the enumeration concludes with the general phrase
It is impossible to follow the rule of construction which the supreme court has applied to this statute, and yet hold that the word 'letter,' interpolated into it by the amendment, is not qualified by the general phrase 'or other publication.' It is also hard to give the amendment any effect, and yet hold that mere private letters of an indecent character are not within the inhibition of the statute. The question is therefore perplexing. I am unable to agree with Judge Ross, who, in passing upon the same question, in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Ling
...Counsel for the accused claims that a private letter in a sealed envelope is not within the prohibition of the statute, and cites U.S. v. Warner, 59 F. 355, and U.S. v. Id. 357. The decisions in U.S. v. Clark, 43 F. 574, and U.S. v. Wilson, 58 F. 769, also sustain this view. The contrary is......