Court Opinion

ID: 9417938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:44:56.618923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:53.152596
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Harlan
(with whom concurred The Chief Justice) dissenting.
The Chief Justice and myself áre of opinion that the publication here in question is second class mailable matter, and can*111not concur in the opinion and judgment of the court. Our reasons for dissenting are stated in the opinion .filed by us in Houghton v. Payne, just decided.
But there are some things in the- opinion of the court in this case to which we shall advert. It is said that the case is one of doubt. Now, fit was admitted at the bar by the Government that the publication known as “Masters in Music” would be carried in the mails as second class matter if the question be decided in accordance with the construction placed upon the statute by the Department .for more than, sixteen years continuously prior to the present ruling of the Department. We had supposed it to be firmly, settled that the established practice of an Executive Department charged with the execution of a statute will be respected and followed — especially if it has been long continued — unless such practice rests upon a construction of the statute which is clearly and obviously wrong. In United States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52, 59, which involved the construction placed by an Executive Department upon an act of Congress, this court said: “Since it is not clear that that construction was erroneous, it ought not now to be overturned.” So in United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 145, the court said that it would accept the uniform interpretation by the Interior Department of an act relating to the public lands, “as the true one, if, upon examining the statute, we found its meaning to be at all doubtful or obscure.” The authorities to that effect are numerous. Edwards’ Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206; Hahn v. United States, 107 U. S. 402; United States v. Graham, 110 U. S. 219; Brown v. United States, 113 U. S. 568; United States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52; United States v. Johnson, 124 U. S. 236; United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169; United States v. Finnell, 185 U. S. 236; United States v. Ala. G. S. R. R. Co., 142 U. S. 615; Hewitt v. Schultz, 180 U. S. 139, 157. Some of them are cited in the opinion of .the court in Houghton v. Payne. The -rule of construction which this court has recognized for more than three-quarters of á century is now overthrown. For, it is adjudged that the prác*112tice of the. Post. Office Department, covering a. period of sixteen years and more, need not be regarded in this case, although the construction of the statute in question is admitted to bp doubtful. We cannot give our assent to this view.