The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-12-06
Interesting Postal Decision.
GALLANT LETTER FROM POSTMASTER GENH


HOLT. Ed
The following letter from Mr. Joseph Holt Postmaster
ton as interesting is novel. husband, who had
been separated from his wife, demanded that his village
ened suit at law If his demand was not compiled
with. The wife, on the other hand, forbade tho
delivery Of her letters to the husband In these cir
cumstances the Postmaster appealed to Mr. Holt for
structens. That gentleman pronounces the claim al.
vanced by the husband too preposterous to be seriously
refutedindeed, he says it is abhorrent law as II is 70
the Christian civilization Of the age We give Mr. Hollis
Posr OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Nov. 80. 1859.
SRIn yours Of the 23d inst, you ask for instructions
in regard to the delivery letters to wife who ia sena
rated from her husband but is not divorced and 70,
state that the husband claims all letters addressed TO her
and will commence prosecution IL his claim not allowed
while the wife orbds that he shall be permitted to receive
them. -
The precise question raised by this state of facts has
never before been presented to this Department which
affords gratifying proof that there is no prevailing dspo
port OF the postal authorities in endeavos to intercept
violate the correspondence Of their wives In taking ths
step ne has no doubt, proceeded upon the mistaken
assumption that because Of her legal identity with him
self for certain purposes these letters therefore his
absolute property, and he has the right control the
Postmaster in their delivery. When a husband becomes
estranged from his wife and abandons her. or by his
neglect or cruelties compels her to abandon him. would
be as revolving to humanity, as subversve of sound
morals to suffer him to cut Off her communication with
those relatives and friends to whom her hour Of trial
consolation which she might need more than food
or raiment 1t has long since been adjudged, both in
reached the Of those whom they are direct
ed, their writer has still such property in them as
will enable him to maintain an injunction to pre-
exist when the letters like those under consideration are
in transiu. This principle seems to be declared in the
Act Of Congress- which requires that all delivered
letters, containing vauables, SHALL with their contents be
returned TO the writer's, whose propreorshp in them
could scarcely thereafter be controversial The depart
ment both in the transportation and delivery Of eters
the agent of their writer's from whose warrant of
attorney, as found in the superscripton upon them.
neither the counsel the command Of the husband nor
OF anybody elseunder such circumstances are hero
presented-will justify departure What state Of facts
would au thorise revocation modification of this
'warrant Of Attorney by the writer's themselves it is
in this instance that any such revocation has been made
only such letters be delivered to the wife as the
husband may formally sanction, It would equally follow
that none could be safely carried in the NAILS written BY
her, without like assent first obtaned--a doctrine
TOO preposterous to be seriously refuted. The
husband, in this case, seems to have supposed
that he has the same property in the thoughts
and sympathes OF his wfe--though no longer
member of his household-and of her friends that he
has in her goods and chaels This view of marital power
mghtwel find place in the code Of the Grand TURK and
would possibly be submitted to In his harem but re-
pugnant 10 the teachings Of American jurisprudence.
While in legal contemplation the wfes existence is to
degree merged in that of the husband ID also true
her individuality is for many purposes conceded and
ned and that she has rights secured to her not only
dependent OF but in defiance Of the will Of her iege lord
She legally and morally responsible, apart from him.
and has necessarily guaranteed to her tharced0om OF
thought and of the interchange Of thought sought in this
instance TO be denied her but without which the npos
ton Of such responsibility would be an arbitrary and
morseess despotsm. Hence may be safely held that
the jealous and heartess espionage attempted to DO
exercised by this husband correspondence or hs
wife, from whom he is separated is as abhorrent law
is to the Christian civilization OF the age, which re-
cognizes the companion of man. but not his
slave.
You are therefore instructed to deliver the letters in
question to the lady to whom they are addressed.
To Postmaster at - ''-''"''