Court Opinion

ID: 9463835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:17:25.645054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:18.133626
License: Public Domain

*133SEITZ, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
This case raises issues of substantial economic moment both to the Postal Service and to publishers. Its disposition turns on the correct interpretation of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 24 S.Ct. 590, 48 L.Ed. 888 (1904). In Houghton, the Court was confronted with the problem of whether a series of books, each containing a single work of literature, constituted a “periodical publication” for purposes of the statute governing second class mailing privileges. In considering this question, the Court set forth its reading of the phrase “periodical publications” as follows:
“. . . the publication must be a ‘periodical publication,’ which means, we think, that it shall not only have the feature of periodicity, but that it shall be a periodical in the ordinary meaning of the term. ... A periodical, as ordinarily understood, is a publication appearing at stated intervals, each number of which contains a variety of original articles by different authors, devoted either to general literature of [sic] some special branch of learning or to a special class of subjects. Ordinarily each number is incomplete in itself, and indicates a relation with prior to subsequent numbers of the same series. It implies a continuity of literary character, a connection between the different numbers of the series in the nature of the articles appearing in them . . . .” 194 U.S. at 96-7, 24 S.Ct. at 592.
The quoted portion of the opinion states that the statutory language must be interpreted on the basis of ordinary usage, and that in ordinary usage each number of a “periodical publication” contains “a variety of original articles by different authors .” The opinion thus states the “variety of original articles” criterion without ambiguity,1 though as to the requirements that each number be “incomplete in itself” and that there be “a connection between the different numbers of the series in the nature of the articles appearing in them,” the opinion is less definite. The Court based its ultimate decision that the series of books was not a “periodical publication” on these latter criteria of incompleteness and continuity. But I believe we should respect the Court’s unambiguous statement that “a variety of original articles” is required, since the Court was endeavoring to set forth the statutory framework within which the question before it arose.
Thus, under Houghton we must address the question of whether the Current Contents publications contain “a variety of original articles.” I do not understand appellant to contend that they do. Moreover, any such contention would be unsupportable. For the most part, the publications merely present the tables of contents of technical journals. The brief editorials in each issue of “Current Contents” and the short digest of articles in the popular press are insufficient, in my view, to change the nature of the entire publication.
The majority’s interpretation of Hough-ton stresses that certain characteristics are found only in periodicals, and that it is these characteristics which must be the “definitive test” of what is a “periodical publication.” This interpretation embodies a logical fallacy. To say that some characteristics of a periodical are not shared with such publications as books is not to say that all characteristics of periodicals are not shared with some other publications. But to determine whether a particular publication is a periodical, one must look to all the characteristics which periodicals have, and not just to those which are unique to periodicals.
I would affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service and the denial of ISI’s cross-motion.

. The Court did mention Payne v. Railway Pub. Co., 20 App.D.C. 581 (1902), appeal dismissed 192 U.S. 602, 24 S.Ct. 849, 48 L.Ed. 583 (1904), where the court treated railroad timetables as “periodical publications.” The Court’s reference to this case, however, does not indicate that it approved the result: “[a] few other non-descript publications, such as railway guides, appearing at stated intervals, have been treated as periodicals and entitled to the privileges of second class mail matter. Payne v. Railway Pub. Co,, 20 App.D.C. 581.”