Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-08-21
Points as to PostaI-Cards.

~0i -
To he Editor OF the DisDd,ch:
have quite lot of postal-cards with an
address printed on them. Would it render
them unavailable 10 paste blank paper on the
printed address on which to write the adj
dress desired? Would il be any violation
of the law to send them through Nles0ail2
A young postmaster has told me that it
is unlawful to send dun" on postal
card through the mail-that Is, write for
payment of an old debt on q postal-card
and send it through the mall that the
sender is liable to fine and imprison-
ment. Is it SO? q.
/. The pssting of an address label upon
the address side of postal-card is per-
missible.
2. The following decision was rendered
by Judge Thayer upon demurrer TO indict-
ment in the case of United States us. Boyle,
in the Distric Court of Missouri &c. d.,
December IA. 1889:
This is an indictment in three counts,
under the act of September rs, 1888 (25 st.
u. s., 496), for depositing postal-cards of
an alleged non-mailable character in the
mails. The postal cards in question were
each addressed TO John Greb, 2201 Frank
lin avenue, st. Louis. and are OF the fol-
lowing tenor:
ST. LOUIS, April II, 1889.
please call and settle account, which
is long past due. and for which our COL
lector has called several times, and oblige.
"'Sr. LOUIS PRETzEL Co.
Postal-card upon which the above
words were written without display. was
held to be mdiIdJe.)
'Sr. LOUIS. April IS. 1889.
"'You owe US $3.50. We have called
several times for same. II not paid at
once we shall place with our law agency
for collection. Respectfully;
Postal-card on which the above words
were written was held to be unUailable)
'Sr. Louis. May l. 1889.
80 You owe us Sl.S0, long past due. We
have called several times for the amount.
IL il is not paid at once we shall place the
same with our lawyer for collection.
80 Respectfully.
Postal-card on which the above words
were written was held TO be unmaildbie.)
Section l OF the act of Septemh5r 90,
1886, provides that oil matter, otherwise
maisble by law. upon the envelope or out
side cover or wrapper of which, or any
postal-card upon which any delineations.
epithets, terms, OF language of an indie
cent. lewd, lascivious, obscene. hbelous.
scurrilous, defamatory, or threatening
character. or calculated by the terms or
manner or style OF display, and obviously
intended TO reflect injuriously upon the
character or conduct of another. may be
written or printed, or otherwise impressed
or apparent, are hereby declared nom
mailable matter, and shall not be conveyed
in the mails etc. The language
of the statute is very general. aud GER
tainly may be construed as prohibition
against mailing postal-cards which con-
tain threats to bring suits If debts are not
paid, as well as being prohibition against
mailing cards containing threats of personal
violence or threats of any other character.
/ conclude that a postal-card on
ment of debt, or thu eat to sue, or to
place the demand in the hands of law
yer for suit, If the debt is not PAID, Is now
non-mailabie matter.
The language employed in the postal
card described in the first count is not Of
q threatening character, and, in my
opinion, no jury would be warranted in
finding in view of its contents that il was
obviously intended by the writer 10 reflect
injuriously on the character or conduct of
the person addressed. or TO injure or de-
grade him in the eyes of the public. 1t is
true that it contains demand for the pay
ment of a debt. and saws it Is long past
due, and that collector has called seye-
raj times; but 10 iE couched IN respect
full terms. and no intent is apparent to put
1t IN such form as to attract public no.
tice, or TO make IL offensive to the person
addressed. Congress bias not declared that
postal-cards shall not be used to make
such demands. and construction of the
act ought not 10 be adopted that will I'M
necessarily restrict their use for business
purposes. The card in question cannot be
held 10 be non-mailabie without being
over critical and extremely punctilous in
the choice of language which men may
lawfully use in their daily TRANSACTIONS
This decision il In accord with the
rulings Of the Post Office Department.