LABOR UNION.
Arresting a letter carrier on an indictment for murder is not obstructing the mail ; U. S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 482, 19 L. Ed. 278. A state statute which necessarily inter feres with speedy and uninterrupted car riage of the mails cannot be considered as a reasonable police regulation; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142, 16 Sup. Ct. 1096, 41 L. Ed. 107. A state cannot prohibit or render penal the use of the mails between the states to effectuate the importation of liquor ; R. M. Rose Co. v. State, 133 Ga. 353, 65 S. E. 770, 36 L. -R. A. (N. S.) 443.
Committing an unprovoked assault upon a postmaster, the necessary result whereof was an obstruction and retarding of the pas sage Of the mail, is an offence, unless the act was independent and disconnected from the postoffice and matters pertaining thereto ; U. S. v. Claypool, 14 Fed. 127.
A person having a lien against horses for their keeping cannot enforce the same in such a manner as to stop the mail in a stage coach drawn by such horses, if it be actually in transitu; U. S. v. Barney, 3 Hughes 545, Fed. Cas. No. 14,525. It is an offence under the statute to stop a mail train although one had obtained a judgment and writ of execu tion from a state court against the railway company ; U. S. v. De Mott, 3 Fed. 478. A forcible obstruction of interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails by the creation of a boycott among the members of the American Railway Union against the Pullman Car Company will be restrained by injunction; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092.
It is not an offence to restrain the driver of a mail coach from driving through a crowded city at such a rate as seriously to endanger the lives of the citizens; U. S. v. Hart, Fed. Cas. No. 15,316, Pet. C. C. 390. Restricting the speed of trains to six miles an hour by city ordinance does not obstruct the mails; 5 Op. Atty. Gen. 554.
Larceny and robbery. Embezzlement or destruction of mail matter by an employe in any department of the postal service is an offence against the postal laws. This statute has been held to create two distinct offences ; viz.': (1) the embezzlement of a letter carried in the United States mail, and (2) the stealing of its contents; and one may be Punished separately for each offence; U. S. v. Taylor, 37 Fed. 200; U. S. v. Atkin
son, 34 Fed. 316. Under the statute no one can be convicted who is not an employe of the postoffice department ; • U. S. v. Nott, 1 McLean, 499, Fed. Cas. No. 15,900. One who steals from the mail, whether an employe or not, commits an offence against the postal laws; U. S. v. Gruver, 35 Fed. 59 ; and in taking or abstracting articles or receiving them when so taken, with the object of open ing, secreting, destroying, embezzling, or stealing the same constitutes the offence; U. S. v. Jolly, 37 Fed. 108.
Sending letters to the customers of cor poration, urging them not to handle its prod ucts on account of labor troubles, is an of fence against the postal laws; U. S. v. Raish, 163 Fed. 911.
Under U. S. Cr. Code, § 215, a "scheme to defraud" by the use of the mails may be found in any plan to get money or property of others by deceiving them as to the sub stantial identity of the thing they are to receive in exchange; this deception may be by implication, as well as by expressed words. There must be an underlying intent to defraud ; mere expressions of honest opin ion as to quality or future performance or "puffing" is not enough, if within reasonable bounds; Harrison v. U. S., 200 Fed. 662, 119 C. C. A. 78.
Among such schemes to defraud are: Sell ing worthless corporate stock ; Wilson v. U. S., 190 Fed. 427, 111 C. C. A. 231; running a bucket shop under the pretense of doing real trading ; Foster v. 'U. S., 178 Fed. 165, 101 C. C. A. 485; running a fake marriage bureau; Grey v. U. S., 172 Fed. 101, 96 C. C. A. 415 ; getting consignments without in tent to remit; McConkey v. U. S., 171 Fed. 829, 96 C. C. A. 501; carrying on financial schemes impossible of performance; Walker v. U. S., 152 Fed. 111, 81 C. C. A. 329.
As to the use of decoy letters, see that title.
As to courts interfering with post office rulings, see U. S. v. Cortelyou, 28 App. D. C. 570, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 166.
As to using the mails for improper or non mailable matter, see LIBEL ; LIBERTY OF THE PRESS ; LOTTERY ; OBSCENITY.