The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-10

lenses, IL he knows these laws have no
existence as laws. and IL he knows tae
sum demanded is not due. The only
Federal statute On this subject Is Sec
ton 1856, Revised Statutes. which reads
as follows: 'Postmasters shall notify the
publishers of any newspaper or other
periodical when subscriber shall refuse
ID take the same from the Office, or neg
lect to call for IL within the period of
one month
Il doubt not that the publishers of
newspapers lose q great deal OF money
tnat Is legally aud equitably due them
from subscribers, but I cannot believe
that they Will threaten to enforce against
delinquent iubscribers what purport 10 be
laws or the most stringent kind when
they are Informed that there are no
such laws. The relation between the
publisher OF newspaper and n suh-
scrioer Is that of contract. and the
same rules of law apply in that case as
Apply In other business transactions ne
tween man and man"
IN MS second reply Judge Thomas saws.
enclose you copy of a letter sent
to-uay 10 an editor. In further answer
10 your letter | will say that the method
OF business adopted by the Publishers
collection Agency is utterly indefensible
Printed on the face of dunning letters
are these so-called newspaper laws"
Wflch, OF course, you, as d lawyer. know
nave no existence as laws oy decisions Of
the courts. While IT Is true that these So
called laws are not referred to In the
body OF the letters, yet they are printed
In connection herewith with an object,
which. as you say, is apparent. | have
held. as you will see from the enclosed
letter that a publisher of a newspaper
M Il Al q
money under false pretences when he
makes demand for the subscription price
OF his paper, which he knows is not legal
ly due, accompanied by a threat to en-
force these so-called laws i'm Ease of re-
fusal TO pay, and If that be So how much
more culpable will be an agency that
deliberately devises a scheme like this in
order TO enforce collections There might
be some excuse for publishers who are not
lawyers in pr)mulgating such laws, but
there can be none for a collection agency,
which, presumably. has at all times a
legal adviser. IL is apparent that these
| laws are printed on the face of the let
| ters your agency sends out In order to
scare the parties dunned into making
prompt remittances. In the second dun
sent out there is some significant Ian
| gIage. 1t is stated that II the claim is
| not paid, suit will be brought which
will not be of a very pleasant nature.
| Immediately opposite this statement In
| the margin. is printed the so-called laws,
| according to which there is no escape
| for the recipient OF the dun from liability
| and according 10 which he may he ar
rested and punished II he fails to respond
with the money whether he legally owes
| It or not. And again, it appears from the
cautious wording Of the dunning letters
| the writer was conscious that the So
! called laws had no existence as laws
| for he scrupulously refrains from refer
ring TO them in terms and yet the letter
IS written side by side with them, the
| object of which Is apparent, as you your
| self admit. This Is not a Legitimate
method OF doing business. My opinion it
| that the scheme of this agency, as con
ducted is one devised to defraud the
| people by the pretence that there are
certain laws which have no existence in
| fact; and literature and letters concern
| ing it are non-mailabe under the provi-
! sions OF the Acts of Congress approved
March 2, 1859 (25 stat. S73), and September
| 49, 1890 f26 stat, 4G5).