The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-10-01
REESE MUST REMAIN
WITH THE REGIMENT
Judge Newcomb Decides That He Is
Not Engaged in the Transporta-
tion Of the Mails.

There was a hearing yesterday be-
fore Judge Newcomb in the habeas
corpus case of David U. Reese, the
latter desiring to be relieved from mill
tary duty with the Thirteenth regi-
ment because he Is a mail carrier.
Reese is a member of the regimental
band and refused to report for duty
when the regiment was called out. A
detail was sent here from camp Sat-
urday and Reese was arrested and
has since been detained there.
No testimony was taken yesterday
| there being no dispute as to the facts
and the matter was disposed of on
the argument of the attorneys, C. w.
Dawson appearing for the writ and
j. w. Oakford for the respondents.
Marcus Bailey, Captain Huff of Com
pany II and Colonel l.. A. Watres.
The case hinged on whether or not
Reese was engaged in the transporta-
| tion of the mails and after hearing the
| case Judge Newcomb decided that a
man who is engag ged in delivering GER
tain pieces of mail as carrier does
| is not engaged in the transportation of
the mail within the meaning of the
law and Reese will have to remain
| opinion follows:
| This writ was applied for to secure the
| release of the relator from service in the
Thirteenth regiment of the National
Guard of this state. which was recently
called to active duty in the field. The
ground upon which he claims the right
| to be so released is the fact that he is
| in the employ of the federal government,
| in the capacity of Il letter carrier, at the
| Scranton pOstoflice, in this city. He rests
| his claim upon the provisions of the sew
eral acts of congress of May S. 1892, 7th
! May, 1900. and 3Oth April, 1910, as col
lected in section 1929 of the Revised Stat
| utes, specifying the persons who shall be
| exempt from militia duty.
| The particular clause under which eX-
| empton in this case is claimed is as fol-
| lows: "All postmasters and persons en-
ployed in the transportation of the mail
| The contention of counsel on the part
| of relator Is that he falls within the
scope of this clause, and that the eXemp-
| tion is Il provision which the federal gov
| ernment has made for the benefit and
| protection of its own service, and. there
| fore, it is not competent for a person SO
| exempted to waive the exemption and
thus to deprive the government of the
benefit of his service, which the exemp-
tion was designed to secure.
Both of these grounds are seriously
controverted by the respondents, who
| contend:
First-That Reeses employment is not
comprehended within the terms of the
statute upon which he relies, and,
Sccond-That even if it were so compre-
| hendsd, the exemption is personal
| privilege which he may waive, and that
he did waive it by enlistng in the guard.
After a somewhat careful considera-
| tion, we are of opinion that if the eX-
| cmption under the acts of congress APP
plies to the REALTORS employment, the
contention of his counsel that he may
| not waive it, is sound: but we are unable
to agree with him in his further conten-
| tion that he is ''person employed in the
| transportation of the mall
We can find no good reason for giving
| the word Transportation" as used in
| these acts, any other than its ordinarily
| accepted commercial sense, which inn
| ports the conveyance or carrying of the
mails in bulk as upon railway cars,
stage coaches, sailing or steam vessels,
or by wagon between railway terminals
| and postottices, etc, etc. The employ
mcnt of the reator is rather in the de-
| livery of specific pieces of mail, whether
| letters, papers or such other malable
matter as is handled by the postoffice de-
partment. 1t would have been quite
| easy by the addition of Il few apt words
| to have made the exemption compre-
hensive enough TO include IA letter carrier,
| If that had been the purpose of any of the
| several statutes referred to.
We hold, therefore, that to be entitled
to the exemption claimed in this case, a
| person must be within the definite terms
or clear intendmcnt of the statute, and
| that the relator is within neither.
| The writ is therefore dismissed and the
| relator rcmanded to the custody of the
respondents. 1t Is directed that the costs
of this proceeding be paid by the county
| of Lackawanna.