United States v. Chesman

19 F. 497 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri | 1881

McCrary, J.

In this,case, by agreement, counsel have submitted to the court the question whether the publications complained of come within the provisions of section 3893 of the Revised Statutes, which prohibits tho mailing in any post-office of any publication of an obscene or indecent character. We have considered this question after a full oral argument by counsel, and we are clearly of the opinion that the publications referred to in the indictment and information do fall within the provisions of this section of the statute. They are clearly both obscene and indecent, and, in our opinion, within the meaning of the statute. It is not necessary, perhaps, to say more, but I may remark that it has been insisted by counsel for the defendant, with great earnestness, that the publications in question are, in their character, medical, and that tho matters complained of are, to a, large extent, extracts from standard medical works. It may be, and probably is, true that much of the offensive matter is taken from hooks upon medicine and surgery, which would he proper enough for the general use of members and students of the profession. There are many things contained in the standard works upon these subjects which, if printed in pamphlet form and spread broadcast among the community, being sent through the mail to persons of all classes, including boys and girls, would be highly indecent and obscene. I am not prepared to say, and it is not necessary now to decide, whether these medical books could be sent through the mails without a violation of the statute. The publications before us are not medical. It is manifest from an examination of them that they are intended to be circulated generally among the people. We decide at present nothing more than they come within the provisions of the statute, and that when deposited in the post-office, directed to any actual person, the law is violated, without regard to the character of the person to whom they are directed. This, perhaps, may be shown by way of mitigation or aggravation of the offense, but not in justification.

See, generally, U. S. v. Kaltmeyer, 16 Fed. Rep. 760, and Bates v. U. S. 10 Fed. Rep. 92, and note.