Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/255/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:41:42+00:00

Document:
The knowingly depositing an obscene letter in the mails, enclosed in an envelope or wrapper upon which there is nothing but the name and address of the person to whom the letter is written, is not an offense within the Act of July 12, 1876, 19 Stat. 90, c. 186.
A sealed and addressed letter is not a " writing" within the meaning of that act.
A certified question: "Does the indictment charge the defendant with any offense?" is too general to be made the subject of a Certificate of Division.
not set forth the same in this indictment, which said letter was then and there enclosed in a certain paper wrapper, which said wrapper was then and there addressed and directed as follows, that is to say, 'Watchweer Print, Providence, R.I.,' against the peace and dignity of the said United States, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."
"1. The indictment does not set forth the contents of the letter which is alleged to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, and nonmailable, nor does it describe said letter, or any part thereof; nor does it in any way identify said letter."
"2. The indictment does not allege that the defendant knew the contents of said letter at the time of the alleged deposit thereof in the mails of the said United States."
"3. The indictment does not allege that the defendant deposited said letter in the mails of the said United States for the purpose of circulating and disposing of, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition of, anything declared to be nonmailable matter by any law of the United States."
"4. The indictment does not allege that the defendant deposited, or caused to be deposited, for mailing or delivery, anything declared to be nonmailable by section one (1) of an Act of Congress approved on the 12th day of July, A.D. 1876, or by any law of the United States."
"5. The indictment does not charge the defendant with any offense."
"First. Is the knowingly depositing in the mails of an obscene letter enclosed in an envelope or wrapper upon which there is nothing but the name and address of the person to whom the letter is written an offense within the Act of July 12, 1876, chapter 186? "
"Second. Does this indictment allege that the defendant deposited, or caused to be deposited, for mailing or delivery, anything declared to be nonmailable matter by that act, or by any law of the United States?"
"Third. Does this indictment charge the defendant with any offense?"
"Thereupon, at the request of the counsel for the United States, it is ordered that these questions be stated as aforesaid, and be certified under the seal of this Court to the Supreme Court of the United States at its next session."
Objection is taken to the consideration of the questions presented by this certificate of division for several reasons, none of which are deemed sufficient to preclude our taking jurisdiction of the case, and we shall therefore proceed to consider the questions certified in the order they are arranged in the certificate.
or of aiding in the circulation or disposition of the same shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall for each and every offense be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both at the discretion of the court."
The contention on the part of the United States is that the term "writing," as used in this statute, is comprehensive enough to include, and does include, the term "letter," as used in the indictment, and it is insisted therefore that the offense charged is that of unlawfully and knowingly depositing in the mails of the United States an obscene, lewd, and lascivious "writing," etc.
"to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
picture, paper, writing, print -- each of which is ordinarily and prima facie understood to be a publication, and the enumeration concludes with the general phrase "or other publication," which applies to all the articles enumerated, and marks each with the common quality indicated.
It must therefore, according to a well defined rule of construction, be a published writing which is contemplated by the statute, and not a private letter on the outside of which there is nothing but the name and address of the person to whom it is written.
We do not think it a reasonable construction of the statute to say that the vast mass of postal matter known as "letters" was intended by Congress to be expressed in a term so general and vague as the word "writing" when it would have been just as easy, and also in strict accordance with all its other postal laws and regulations, to say "letters" when letters were meant, and the very fact that the word "letters" is not specifically mentioned among the enumerated articles in this clause is itself conclusive that Congress intended to exclude private letters from its operations.
Revised Statutes. Can it be possible that Congress, then, wishing to include 'letters' in any particular and accurate enumeration, shall drop that word, so imbedded in our postal laws and that of our ancestors beyond the sea, and adopt some unfamiliar, inferior, and in every sense ambiguous term, to express the idea?"
"every letter upon the envelope of which . . . indecent, lewd, obscene, or lascivious delineations, epithets, terms, or language may be written or printed . . . shall not be conveyed in the mails"
"where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment."
Pretty v. Solly, 26 Beavan 610, per Romilly, M.R.: State v. Commissioners of Railroad Taxation, 37 N.J.Law 228. This rule applies wherever an act contains general provisions and also special ones upon a subject which, standing alone, the general provisions would include. Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes 560.
another is a sufficient publication to bring a letter within the statute, as is held to be the case in an action of slander and libel.
The reply to this is that the statute prohibits the conveyance by mail of matter which is a publication before it is mailed, and not such as becomes a publication by reason of its being mailed.
Another argument on which indictments of this character have been sustained by some of the circuit courts is that a reasonable construction must be given the statute, and, it being evident that Congress intended to exclude anything of an obscene character from the mails, it is immaterial whether the thing prohibited is inside or outside of an envelope, and therefore unreasonable to hold that Congress intended not to allow a decent writing in an obscene envelope, but at the same time to allow obscene writing in a proper envelope. We recognize the value of the rule of construing statutes with reference to the evil they were designed to suppress as an important aid in ascertaining the meaning of language in them which is ambiguous and equally susceptible of conflicting constructions. But this Court has repeatedly held that this rule does not apply to instances which are not embraced in the language employed in the statute or implied from a fair interpretation of its context, even though they may involve the same mischief which the statute was designed to suppress. United States v. Sheldon, 2 Wheat. 119; United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 18 U. S. 95; United States v. Morris, 14 Pet. 464, 39 U. S. 475; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214.
is exposed to the inspection of others than the person to whom the letter is written.
Ashurst, J., said in Jones v. Smart, 1 T.R., 51: "It is safer to adopt what they [the legislature] have actually said than to suppose what they meant to say." In the Queensborough Cases, 1 Bligh 497, Lord Redesdala said: "The proper mode of disposing of difficulties arising from a liberal construction is by an act of the legislature, and not by the decision of court." Congress seems to have acted upon this idea; and, if further argument were needed in support of our view, it will be found, we think, in the fact that in an amendment to this statute passed September 26, 1888, 25 Stat. 496, c. 1039, for the first time in the history of the postal service, the word "letter" was included in the list of articles made nonmailable by reason of their obscene, lewd, lascivious, or otherwise improper character. If letters were embraced in the statute on which this indictment was founded, why did Congress consider it necessary to insert the specific word to designate them in 1888? It must be that that body did not put the construction on the prior statute claimed in behalf of the United States, else we have it doing a useless and vain act. But as the amendment of 1888 is not involved in this case, no opinion is expressed as to whether the term "letter," as used therein, can, under a proper construction of that statute, be held to include a strictly private sealed letter.
With reference to the argument that the word "writing" occurs, in the legislation on this subject, as an amendment, we have only to remark that the entire history of that legislation, so far from forming a basis for a different construction of this act, confirms it.
For the reasons above given, our answer to the first question certified is in the negative. This being decisive, we need not consider the second question, and the third, as has been repeatedly held, is too general to be the subject of a certificate of division.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.