Table Of ContentTHE POWER OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
TO PROHIBIT THE DELIVERY
OF NONMAILABLE MATTER
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Public Administration
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Public Administration
by
John David McCann
June 1950
UMI Number: EP64485
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
U M I
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EP64485
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProOuest'
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
Pu* ' ^
This thesis, written by
...................J.ohn-Dasrld-McCami.....................
under the guidance of h-X-.fi>.. Faculty Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been
presented to and accepted by the Council on
Graduate Study and Research in partial fulfill
ment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Public Administration
DateZx
Faculty/Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . . . 1
The problem ..................... 1
Statement of the problem. ................ 1
Importance of the study . . . . . ........... 1
Definitions of terms used............. • • • • 2
Appellee..........• • • . . ............. 2
Cease and desist • • • . . 2
Certiorari. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
Demurrer. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
Deposition................................. 3
Enjoin. • • • • • • • • • . ............ •• 3
Ex parte......... • • • 3
Fraudulent • • • • 3
Inter partes............................... 3
Mala per s e ....................... • • . . . b
Mala prohibita............................. **
Moot. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . b
Nonmailable or unmailable..................
!
Prima facie......................... • . . • b
Respondent. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . .
Right..................................... 5
Scheme............• • • • ................. 5
ii
iii
CHAPTER PAGE
II. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT . . . . 6
III. BRIEF HISTORY OF FRAUD ORDERS...................... 13/
IV. REVIEW OF CASES UNDER U.S.C.A. TITLE 39, SECTION
259 . * . . ......................... 2b
Validity and constitutionality of statute • • • • 2b
Construction and operation of the statute5 false
or fraudulent pretenses, and injunction • • • • 26
Authority vested in the postmaster general. . . . 28
The hearing of cases and burden of proof...... 31
Review by the courts......... 37
Evidence that is submitted. ............. **3
Parties to the case........... b$
Persons entitled to protection.............. .. b6
Summary judgement of the postmaster general . . . b?
V. REVIEW OF CASES UNDER U.S.C.A. TITLE 18, SECTION
338 (REVISED SECTION 13bl).................... b9
Purpose of this statute .............. • • • • • b9
Threats and blackmailing schemes............ .. 50
Evidence to show knowledge or intent. . . . . . . 51
The character of letters and the persons to whom
they are sent ............... 52
Separate offenses and double jeopardy .......... $b
Fraud accomplished before the mails are used. . • 56
Immunity from prosecution.................. . 57
iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Entrapment, evidence obtained by opening mail,
and searches and seizures • • .............. 53
Persons liable. ............. 6l
Statute of limitations. ................ 62
Venue and place of trial, and removal.of
defendant to another district .............. 62
Admissibility of evidence................... 67
Weight given to hearsay................. 68
Writings and documents, letters and telegrams,
and copies of writings..................... 69
Motion pictures • • • • . ........... . • • • • 72
VI. ANALYSIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF
19^6....... .. ........... ................. .. 7^
Ad judication. ........................... 7^
Ancillary matters........................... 76
Hearings..................................... 77
Decisions................................... 79
Judicial review........................... 79
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................. 32
Summary............. . • • • • 32
Conclusions ......... 3V
BIBLIOGRAPHY . ..................................... 88
APPENDIX................................................10^
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
Since the inception of the Poet Office Department, the
executive head, the Postmaster General, has been confronted
with the enormous problem of determining what type of mail
matter shall be excluded therefrom* One of the categories
of mail matter which has been deemed unworthy of being per
mitted to be transported by the Department is fraudulent
matter, and in some instances this exclusion has been con
sidered to be an abridgement of the constitutional rights of
the individuals involved.
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this
study (1) to trace the growth of the exelusion powers of the
Post Office Department; (2) to determine the legality and
trustworthiness of the statutes which give the power of exclu
sion to the head of the Department; and (3) to present a review
and analysis of actual cases in which the individuals believed
they had been wronged.
Importance of the study. Freedom of speech, press,
and religion has been guaranteed to the citizens of the
United States by the Constitution. However, there have been
instances when individuals have been deprived of these
1
fundamental freedoms# This deprivation has been more apparent
and has received more publicity when the summary action of one
person, namely, the Postmaster General, has excluded matter
from the mails# When such action has been questionable the
individuals have recourse to the Courts. An attempt was made
in this study to ascertain where such weaknesses exist in an
effort to improve upon the existing method of review so as to
insure the individual of the freedom he is guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States#
XI# DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
Appellee. This term is used in reference to the party
in a ca.se against whom an appeal is taken# Such a party is
sometimes referred to as the defendant or respondent#
Cease and desist# This connotes the cessation of
illegal schemes or actions under the order of an agency#
Certiorari# This is a writ issued from a supreme
court to a lower court# It is employed when ordering up for
review the records and proceedings of a case before verdict#
This writ may also be issued on a case already terminated in
a lower court when ascertaining if there have been any errors
or irregularities in the proceedings#
Demurrer# An allegation of a defendant, assuming the
truth of the matters of fact alleged by the bill to be true,
3
shows that they are not sufficient to permit the plaintiff to
proceed, or necessitate answering by the defendant.
Deposition, This term is used in reference to oral
testimonies which are received under oath. It connotes the
written statements of oral testimonies made before an examiner,
commissioner, or officer of the court (but not in open court)
which has been recorded under the direction of the examiner*
Enjoin, Pertains to those who secure a writ of injunc
tion from a court of equity which requires a person to refrain
or desist from some act. In this paper it is used in refer
ence to those who secure a writ from a federal court, which
enjoins the Postmaster from carrying out the fraud order
issued by the Postmaster General,
Ex parte. When at the heading of a case it signifies
that the name following is that of the party upon whose appli
cation the ease is heard. It signifies that the other party
has not been notified of the application.
Fraudulent * This term connotes false representation
of a systematic plan by a contriver for the purpose of procur
ing money. It is used to denote solicitation of money for
worthless enterprises.
Inter partes* A literal interpretation of this is
between parties. As used it connotes letters or correspondence
between those who are co-operating or working together in a
scheme to defraud.
Mala per se. This refers to offenses that are evil
in themselves.
Mala prohibita. Acts which are acknowledged as harmful
offenses. This also refers to the legislative policy of pro
hibiting certain deeds or acts for expediency or protection.
Moot. Used in reference to an undecided question
which is subject for argument.
Nonmailable or unmailable. This is interpreted to
include all such matter which is by law, or regulation, pro
hibited from being transmitted in the mails. For clarity
nonmailable matter is in reference to fraudulent mail matter.
In some instances reference is made to obscene matter, or
lotteries, but when this is the case the nonmailable status
of such matter is properly identified.
Prima facie. This term connotes the extent to which
a case can be determined from the first disclosure, jl•e.,
a case established by sufficient evidence which can be over
thrown only by rebutting the evidence adduced by the other
side.
Respondent. The person or concern upon whom an
