Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-03-21
OPENED LETTERS.
Judge Hammond Takes a Broad View
of the Delivery of EpistIes and
Opening Them.
The United States has Jurisdiction I'm
I'll They Reach the Persons TO
Whom They are Sent.

One of the most interesting decisions rem
dered for long time was that of Judge
Hammond in the case of the United States
u. Harriet McCready, yesterday. The case,
at the same time that it involved a question
that has never been definitely settled, was
full OF amusement. 1t arose out of the fact
that two colored ladies, Harriet McCready
and Lettie Ames, lived together in the same
house, and the latter had a beau living at
Collierville. From this beau Lettie was in
the habit of receiving long and loving epis-
ties, the spice of which Harriet McCready
wanted to extract. One day
PRECIOUS MIssIvE
came with the usual Collierville postmark on
it, and the letter carrier threw it in the hall.
Lettie was away at the time, but Harriet
peeping from her door saw the little tender
messenger of love and she appropriated it,
taking it to the house of another colored
lady, who could read. They wanted to read
it very bad, but didn't like to tear it open.
A pot OF potatoes was cooking on the stove,
and the steam rising from il suggested way
to open the letter without tearing it. AC-
cordingly ii was passed over the pot, the glue
was melted and the letter was opened and
read. Then it WAS carefully sealed and de-
livered to Lettie. The latter soon found out
that she had been imposed upon, and ac-
cordingly had Harriet arrested. The testi-
mony Of the negro witnesses in the case was
laughable in the extreme. They told now
the letter was opened why it was opened,
and when it was opened.
THE VERDICT.
The following special verdict was found
by the Jury: Ga or about MAY IA 1881, a
United States letter carrier threw into the
hall of building on Monroe street in which
Lettie Ames and the defendant occupied
81, II.
hall, letter addressed to Lettie Ames, and
sent by mail from Collierville. The defend
ant took this letter into an adjoining house
and opened it, and then, after having it read
to her, sealed it up and gave it to Lettie
Ames. Lettie Ames had previously in
structed the letter carrier to leave her letters
in that hall. The defendant opened the let
ter with intent to obstruct the correspond
ence and pry into the secrets of Lettie Ames
The defendant was indicted under an act
of Congress, reading as follows:
THE ACT.
"Any person who shall take any letter,
postal-card or package, although it does moi
contain any article Of value or evidence
thereof, out of postoffice or branch post
office, or from letter or mail carrier, or
in the custody OF any letter or mail carrier
before it has been delivered to the person to
whom it was directed, with a design to ab-
stract the correspondence, or pry into the
business secrets of another, or shall secrete
embezzle or destroy the same, shall for any
such offense be punishable by a fine OF not
more than $500 or by imprisonment at hard
labor for not more than one year, or both"
Mr.. John T. Moss defended, and claimed
that after letter was delivered the jurisdic-
ton of the United States closed and any
such law was unconstitutional. That it was
then the province of the Ssate courts to afford
protection. He cited several opinions to sus-
tain his view
Judge Hammond filed his opinion that the
statute had been violated, and that it was
constitutional.
THE GIsT OF JUDGE HANIMoND's OPINION.
The concluding paragraph of the opinion
reads follows: The system of mail deliv-
cry in cities by letter carriers is of compare
lively recent date, and is constantly increas-
ing with the growth and development of the
country. 1t necessarily affords greater and
more abundant opportunity for the commits.
sion of offenses like those charged IN this
case than the older method of delivery at
the postoffice. Letters are left in private
boxes, on tables, counters, and under DOORS
and if the system is to be efficient they
MUST BE PROTECTED
in that situation; indeed, the postmasters-
general by their printed regulations urged
the public TO provide letter-boxes at places
of private business or private residences,
thereby saving delay in the delivery of mail
matter. For this reason, it seems to me,
that sections SO and 1872 should receive
liberal construction by the courts. The evil
to be remedied is so easy OF accomplishment
it could not under different view be pre-
vented by the existing statutes. 1t is ample
in its letter and spirit; and was no doubt in
tended TO protect the seals of all correspond
ants through the mails until actual manual
delivery to the party addressed or his author
lied agent. The courts should, in my judy
ment, effectuate that intention by con-
STRUNG it, aud not devolve the duty
oi afordiug the required protection on
the States upon any theory that there
is want OF constitutional power in
Congress to do it. 1t seems an unnecessary
separation of the subject matter TO so divide
the duty of protection. l am, therefore, of
the opinion that the special verdict in this
case renders the defendant guilty of the
offense charged in the Indictment.
Judge Hammond's opinion strikes a new
keynote on this subject The Supreme Court
has never decided the case at all, and in ar
irving at his conclusion the Judge was guided
BY decision on pension case, which had
points Of resemblance to the latter case.