The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-10-25
WHOLE NO. 63
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA. MONDAY, OCT. 20, 1875

WHOLE NO. 63
have enclosed those bills in our rspsr
without any charge therefor. Had We
not the right to send them as op4n cir
culars prepaid with one cent stampe
Sec. 1O8 of the Regulations provides:
On pamphlets, :. :. :. unsealed circu-
lars :. :. :. one cent for each two ounces
or fraction thereof
But it is claimed that these bills were
partly printed and partly written, and
hence were subject to letter postage.
Let us see what the law says:
ITO inclose or conceal a letter or otherthing
EXCEPT BILLS AND RECEIPTS FOR sUBsCau-
TIoSs;) in or to unite or print anything - =
other printed matter Is illegal and subjects such
printed matter = = to letter postage, eto. !"
Now let us put this proposition in .
palmer form and it will read:
"To inclose letter or to write anything
upon any printed matter, (su.h ~ cir
culars, will subject 1t to letter postage;
ercept in the case Of bills and receipts for
subscriptions
Clearly in that case there would be no
increase OF the rate. Clearly then John
Kennedy had no right to write on each
one "Due Five Cents" Had he the
right to open those circulars in transit
through his oficep The law (Sec. 146)
says:
''That any person employed in dny depart
ment OF the postal service who shall unlawfully
- :. OPEN any letter :. - which shall
have come int. h!s possession !. :. shall
1 on, on,Yuiofsoy, far crnh 0fko
forfeit aud pay . penalty Of five hundrs4 dol
lars or be imprisoned not more than one year,
or both, at the discretion Of the COURT
Did not the postmaster who ''opened"
those circulars, read th.ir contents and
marked each one "dqe five cents" lay
himself open to prosecution under that
acta We think he did; and If we were
as malicious toward1him as he has been
towards Us we would take steps to have
him prosecuted.
! But suppose we are wrong in this con-
struction OF the law, and that the ono
cent stamp we offered was not enough;
what was postmaster Silly's duty thene
i The law says:
A A letter not prepaid not having one full rate
prepaid thereon, should b held for postage,
but reaching an Office Of delivery through In
advertence, portage should Be collected at the
rata Of six cents tor each halt ounce or fraction
thereof, giving credit for any postage stamps
less than one full rate which may have bsen
affixed.
The object Of this Is plain. The Uni
ted States government wants revenue !;
and it is the duty OF its servants to collect
all they can. Instead Of doing this Silly
bundles them up in package and sends
them back to the Nininger Office, and
now boasts that he didn't attempt to col
lcct the postage. Was this rightp Let
US look at law again:
i Sec. las, Chap XIII lsays:
"Any postmaster who shall unlawfully de-
tain in his Office any letter or other mail mat
ter, the posting Of which is-not prohibited By
law with intent to prevent the arrival and d.
lirery OF the some to the person to schom Il q
addressed, shall on conviction thereof fortsi9
and pay not excerding five hundred dollars,
and b imprisoned not exceeding six months"
i Now did not p. NJ. Silly lay himself
open to prosecution under this lawp Did
he not detain in his Office those circulars
or letters with intent to prevent their
delivery to the persons to whom they
were addressed Did he not prevent
their delivery and return them without
authority Of law to the Nininger Officer
i What was his duty7
4 Sec. 1873 Of the law on the subiect pro
vides that all .'nOn-delivered letters'
shall be published in 4 daily or weekly
newspaper, having the largest circula-
lion. and \ copy shall b. posted in tho
post Office conapicuously. Did Silly do
, thi,? Not bit Of it. WHAT nexie
Sec. 426 Of the Postal Regulations pro-
vides:
Al unclaimed advertised letters, 1t ofices q
the first, second, third and fourth Glasses sess6
be returned to tie Dead Letter O0sce q The a.
piration Of four weeks"
Did Silly do this? Not hit Of it. He
returned them to the Nininger ofics.
The whole story in nutshell Il this:
! John Kennedy opened our correDpon-
dence in transit, in violation Of 1aW, en-
dorsed them ''due five cents each. in
. violation of law !; forwarded them 10 Sill
" who in violation Of law, boasts that he
never attempted to collect the rcvenue
due thereon or TO deliver them; or to adj
! vertise them or to post them In his
Office, or to send them 70 the Dead Let
ter Office but returned them to a. q
!. Nininger.
4 II this is what the mail service W.
meant for we would like to know e.
Does any man believe that 10. Whao-
locks correspondence would have been
! treated in that way or bills sent out bv
. the Sainted Stebbins? Have We ALREADY
reached governmental surveillance and
des potism, that the hired lacksys q
,, Grant can undertake - in1eFf<re wtfh
and hinder our busipo1ue Arc ths -.
wants Of the peOpl0 fhefe uosaer1p H16