Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-09-18

ernment is compelled to become the agent
of this lottery company = The first amend.
| ment to the Constitution no more requires
Congress to provide for the carrying Of the
literature Of the lottery company than it re-
Qutres Congress to provide by law for print
ing such literature. Seriously, is 1t not too
! plain that under this first amendment to the
| Constitution Congress does its whole duty by
| the press when ft fails to put any restrictions
| whatever upon the printing of the publica-
tion or circulation thereof by those inter
| as they are able to command?
| AN UNsOUND THEORY.
"why, upon the theory of the argument Of
the petitioners that the publishers OF news
| papers had an absolute right to carriage in
the mails, and that any discrimination
against them is abridging the freedom OF
| the press, then all the postal regulations by
which letters are given precedence over
| newspapers in the mails, even in time of
| carriage and distribution, are invalid. This
| is certainly q discrimination against the
| newspapers. 1t is abridging the freedop Of
"a newspaper published to-day is prac-
sloaliy va vaiueaess tSmorrow, while letters thsra
fore. the precedence provided for In the
regulations, and very common in the trans
portation and delivery of letters over news
papers, is an >intolerable violation Of the
first amendment of the Constitution and
calls for immediate redress. -..'
l. THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.
"Finally, if seems to me that the question
petitioners counsel assume to be in the case
is not so broad as is claimed. Each of the
petitioners is seeking discharge from arrest
under Indictment, or information for illegnl-
ly depositing unavailable matter in the
mails. Whether the law by its terms author
ICES the postal officials to throw out matter
deemed to be unavailable, and whether 1t is
action by the postoffice officials, are ques-
tions not involved in any of these cases. Nor
does it seem to me that they are cases In
which, If the law were found to be invalid
in that particular. It would necessarily be
Invalid under the decisions Of this Court i'll
It's entirety.
not only OF: this court, but generally, hold
that where a number of acts are designated
in the statute as constituting a particular
crime, and as to some such acts the legisla-
tion is unauthorized, the courts cannot be
required to select out such acts as are within
the authority of the Legislature and enforce
the law as to them, rejecting it as to the
Others. -
THE FINAL CONCLUSION.
81 think no decision will be found wherein
it is held that if an act defines different
offenses and provides for their punishment,
the fact that Is to one of the offenses the
legislation was unauthorized renders the
entire Legislation invalid. And SO If the act
defines and prescribes a punishment
for an offense, the fact that it
also Independently, Of such provision
imposes duties on officers which were
authorized by the constitution is immaterial.
If am correct in this discrimination then
the provision for the punishment of mailing
unmaiable matter is in no way dependent
upon those prescribing the duties of post
office officials in relation to such matters,
but each may stand or fall independently of
the other.
1T is proper for me to say that this brief
is intended to be supplemental to the brief
of Assistant Attorney General Maurey, and
not complete presentation of all the phases
of the case"