Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/258/138/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:13:15+00:00

Document:
Whether the advertising of a medicinal preparation through the mails so grossly overstates its true virtue as to work a fraud upon the public is a question of fact committed to the decision of the Postmaster General, and his conclusion will not be reviewed by the courts when fairly arrived at and supported by substantial evidence. P. 258 U. S. 139.
Appeal from a decree of the circuit court of appeals which affirmed a decision of the district court dismissing the bill in appellant's suit to enjoin enforcement of a postal fraud order.
The appellant, doing business in the name of "Organo Product Company," in his bill prayed for an injunction restraining the Postmaster at Chicago from giving effect to a "fraud order" against him, issued by the Postmaster General on August 15, 1919, pursuant to authority of Revised Statute, §§ 3929 and 4041. The order was in the usual form, prohibiting the delivery of mail or payment of money orders to appellant, and directing the disposition of mail which should be addressed to him. The district court, refusing the injunction, dismissed the bill, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed its decree. Leach v. Carlile, 267 F. 61.
"recommended and prescribed by leading physicians throughout the civilized world for nervous weakness, general debility, sexual decline, or weakened manhood and urinary disorders . . . , sleeplessness and rundown system,"
Appellant is an old offender, a prior fraud order having been issued against him under another name in April, 1918, as a result of which he changed his tradename and modified in a measure his advertising matter.
The order complained of was entered after an elaborate hearing, of which the appellant had due notice and at which he was represented by counsel, and introduced much evidence.
conclusion of a head of an executive department on such a question, when committed to him by law, will not be reviewed by the courts where it is fairly arrived at and has substantial evidence to support it, so that it cannot justly be said to be palpably wrong, and therefore arbitrary. Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106, 194 U. S. 108-109; Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 U. S. 53, 226 U. S. 58; Houston v. St. Louis Independent Packing Co., 249 U. S. 479, 249 U. S. 484; United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 255 U. S. 413.
The statute under which fraud orders are issued by the Postmaster General has been decided or said to be valid so many times that it may be too late to expect a contrary decision. But there are considerations against it that seem to me never to have been fully weighed, and that I think it my duty to state.
understand by what authority Congress undertakes to authorize anyone to determine in advance, on the grounds before us, that certain words shall not be uttered. Even those who interpret the Amendment most strictly agree that it was intended to prevent previous restraints. We have not before us any question as to how far Congress may go for the safety of the nation. The question is only whether it may make possible irreparable wrongs and the ruin of a business in the hope of preventing some cases of a private wrong that generally is accomplished without the aid of the mail. Usually private swindling does not depend upon the post office. If the execution of this law does not abridge freedom of speech, I do not quite see what could be said to do so.
Even if it should be held that the prohibition of other modes of carrying letters was unconstitutional, as suggested in a qualified way in Matter of Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, it would not get rid of the difficulty to my mind, because the practical dependence of the public upon the post office would remain. But the decision in that case admits that possibly at least the prohibition as to letters would be valid. That case was not dealing with sealed letters. The decisions thus far have gone largely, if not wholly, on the ground that, if the government chose to offer a means of transportation which it was not bound to offer, it could choose what it would transport, which is well enough when neither law nor the habit that the government's action has generated has made that means the only one. But when habit and law combine to exclude every other, it seems to me that the First Amendment in terms forbids such control of the post as was exercised here. I think it abridged freedom of speech on the part of the sender of the letters, and that the appellant had such an interest in the exercise of their right that he could avail himself of it in this case. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60.

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