St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-12-11
PECULIAR LAW PHASE
That Developed in the Federal
Case Against Roger K.
Williams

ITODdUly tu6 IEOSt HOfCI QuCotiOi
ever urged in the federal courts in this
circuit. was that urged by the counsel
in the case of Roger r. Williams, ar
rested and held on charge of sending
through the mails letter alleged to be
obscene within the puryiew of the
United States statute, section 1898.
Williams lives in st. Paul. About the
middle of November he mailed to his
wife two letters in which the postoffice
inspector attempted to disclose Seri-
Gus state of obscenity. The postal au
thoritieS secured these letters at the in
stance of the wife, who, in her hos.
tiity to her husband. Immediately
upon receiving them, turned them
over to an attorney with instruc-
tons to prosecute for an of.
States government. Williams was ar
rested and brought before Commissioner
Spencer on Dec. 8. His counsel were
James j. McCatferty and Il. W. Wack.
The first hearing was mainly directed
to the point, as to whether sealed let
ter written by a private individual to
another was, within the meaning oflthe
statute. writing and a publieations
Judge Nelson, of this district, has here
tOfOre and recently held that sealed
letter is Il writing and a publication as
defined in the statute. ~
On the same day a hearing was had
upon the question, never beforegraisea
in case of this kind. which was ~
effect that letter written by lluS-5
band to a wife-no matter what it's
nature-if it be sealed is, In law, priV@
LEGGED communication, both under the
old Common law rule and that which OBJ
tains in every state in this country I'M
der statutes which protect the sacred
ness and security of every cOmmunlca-
ton between husband and wife. *.
The question is, indeed, novel one,
as here applied the offense committed
being against the postal system of the
country. The federal authorities, in
endeavoring to prove prima facle case
against the defendant, attempted to in
troduce in evidence the letters written
by the husband to the wife. The evil
dence disclosed the fact to be that i'm
mediately upon receiving the letters
the wife, In her splenetic hate of her
husband, called in third parties, hostile
to the defendant, to whom she offered
to read the letters, and whose services
she enlisted in the subsequent pros
ecution against her husband. The
United States district attorney then of
fered the letters in evidence, to which
the defendants counsel objected. Now
the question in this case was just this:
If the government could not, by this in
direct manner, have the effect of a
wife's testimony against her husband,
it was certainly powerleSS to convict the
defendant of the crime against the pos
tai system.
Gus argument in presenting this ques-
ton to the court, and cited numerous
authorities upon the question Of priv
LEGGED communications.
Justice Miller, of the supreme court,
in discussing this question. i'll declS-
ion rendered fe W years ago, recites a
former attempt to introduce wife's
testimony against her husband, without
the latter'S consent, and denounceS it.
TO have admitted these letters would
have been but an indirect way of per-
hitting wife to testify against her
husband. When Williams wrote these
letters to his wife and she received and
recognized them, the expressions therein
contained died with her. 1t was she
who Published them to third parties,
and if offenSe were committed she must
necessarily be the offender.
Mr.. McCafferty, Mr.. Wack and Mr.
Moves, each of whom quoted extern
siyely from all the law ON the subject
under contention applying in any man
ner to this question, decided to dis
charge the prisoner on the ground that
the alleged obscene matter was pYivi-
legged communication between husband
ana wife; that it was not published by
Williams, but that it died with the wife,
who is, under the law, incompetent to
testify against the husband.
There were further questions in this
case, while not urged, which might
have been urged. had the case not
dropped then and there.
The constitutionality Of that statute
has been but twice before passed upon.
About twelve years ago in jackson
the supreme court held that congress
had the power to pass law. which in
effect, virtually is against the spirits1of
the first amendment to the constitution
of the United States, wherein which it
is declared that congress shall mot
have the power to enact laws which
abridge the freedom of speech or of the
press. Following that decision. inf
the recent lottery cases, the supreme
court of the United States again held
in effect what is an annulment of the
first amendment in the constitution. To
have extended this Williams case where
that question might have been peril
nently discussed, would have indeed
been interesting to the bench and the
bar of this circuit.
Recent law text writers are hurting
their logic against these two notable
decisions of the United States supreme
court, which they declare to mean
blow at the freedom of speech and of