tHE 6424- P&4 UC-NRLF $B bMS 7D7 Our Despotic Postal Censorship By LOUIS F. POST Editor of The Public Keprinted from The Public of March 10, 1906 POSTAL OEIJSOESHIP OP BANKING The Lewis case of St. Louis (p. 778) is a striking instance of the dangerous meddlesomeness of the postal department in private busi- ness. Lewis had undertaken to establish a banking business with certain novel features. Whether those features would be useful or Ti'ot we make no pretense of say- ^n|g We are quite convinced, '10 ever, that post office "inspec- — — ^ — — — > *s pamphlet originally appeared as an e rial in The Public (Chicago) of March '0, 06. It was preceded by two editorials le same subject. One of these, "Our ancing Postal Censorship," appeared In Public of August 12, 1905, and is in nhlet form. The other, "The Growing ^r of Our Postal Censorship,'* appeared ^ le Public of October 7, 1905. Page ref- oes in the text are to the pages of vol. ^'"■■'""""""240978 tors" (the official name for mail bag detectives) are not qualified judges; and we doubt the compe- tency of a Postmaster General who collected campaign contri- butions from financial corpora- tions to be used for his chief's election. Yet this Postmaster General, upon the ex parte report of such detectives, did by arbi- trary order close the mails to Lewis's banking enterprise. Of course that meant death to the enterprise, for mail facilities are vital to every modern business. The pretense was that the busi- ness was fraudulent. But this pretense has been killed by the report of the receiver of the as- sassinated enterprise, who says of it that every loan and investment has been liquidated 100 cents on the dollar with interest in full; that the depositors are being paid in full; and that he has already declared dividends to the stot;k- holders of 85 per cent. If that ^^ as a fraudulent institution, maki ^g loans on wildcat securities, what shall be said of the honest ones whose securities do not pan out in full, whose depositors get but a fraction of their money back, and whose stockholders are lucky if thev don't have to submit to an assessment? Besides . this evi- dence of the legitimacy of Mr. Lewis's assassinated business, we have the signed statement of Alexander Del Mar, the distin- guished publicist who is editor of the American Banker, that he is satisfied after minute examina- tion that the banking business in question — however original its metliod of promo- tion, or however novel its features and plan of working, was an honestly de- signed, and an honestly conducted in- stitution and one which, had it not been disturbed, would have proved profitable to its stockholders and de- positors and even beneficial to the country at large, by increasing the revenues of the post ofiice department, providing a safe and expenseless money order system and affording facilities to the multitude for obtaining small loans of money upon pledges. I am ^ con- strained to add that the dates and other details of the attacks made upon it by the several parties indicated point to. a concerted effort, originating in trade rivalry and embittered by malice. The fact that such a business could be ruined by the flat of a cabinet officer is reason enough ' for overhauling the statutes un- der which an administrative de- partment of the central govern- ment has drawn to itself such monstrous power. 3 POSTAL OENSOKSHIP OP PERIODI- OALS. We recur with much reluctance to the despotic censorship which is growing up in the Post Office Department (p. 420), under cover of well-meant Congressional leg- islation for the suppression of vice and fraud. The subject cannot be neglected while that crude and careless legislation remains upon •the statute books unamended. For this censorship, already de- structive of some of the legiti- mate postal rights of some per- sons, is becoming more and more expansive in scope and despot- ic in execution. The particular instance regard- ing which we are about to submit the facts, relates, as did a previ- ous one (p. 290), to thCxChicago pe- riodical known as "Lucifer," which the Post Office Department is endeavoring to suppress on the manifestly false pretense that it is an obscene publication. On the same pretense and by the same in- fluence, the editor, Mr. Moses Har- man, has been imprisoned (p. 806) through the machinery of the Fed- eral courts. / Lucifer is devoted in good faith to the propagation of its editor's opinions regarding sex relation- ships. Although these opinions are contrary to ours, we conceive that they may nevertheless be en- titled to respectful consideration, and we therefore demand for them the same freedom of expres- sion that we enjoy for our own. They are, indeed, hostile to the perpetuation of certain ecclesias- tical and social conventionalities, but only a false witness or si moral pervert would deliberately pro- nounce them obscene. The prod- uct of a philosophical and not a salacious mind, they presefit for rational thought questions of hu- man welfare which demand un.cen- sored expression. But the vital question present- ed by the particular circumstan- ces to be here considered, is not whether ^^Lucifer^s'' opinions and ours, or its opinions and anybody else's, are at variance. It is not whether one kind of opinion or another shall be suppressed. It is not whether obscenity shall be ex- cluded from the mails, nor even whether ^'Lucifer'' is actyally guilty of obscene utterances. The vital question to the American people in this and all similar cases, is whether any person shall, upon any pretense whatever, be deprived of his liberty or his prop- erty, so far as either depends upon the use of the mails, without a fair trial and in accordance with pub- lic law and unconcealed prece- dents. It is the old question of '^administrative process" in a new form. That the right to use the mails depends, under the act of Con- gress as it now exists, upon the mere whim of administrative of- ficers we have already proved. We purpose now to confirm that proof with additional evidence. At the same time we shall demon- strate specifically the following assertions: 1. Any periodical, though it con- tains nothing obscene, is subject to exclusion peremptorily from the mails as a purveyor of obscenity, upon the mere order of administrative officials of the Post Office Department. 2. Exclusion orders are made os- tensibly in accordance with prece- dents of the Department created by rulings in particular cases upon what constitutes obscenity; but these pre- cedents are secret, and by refusing to define their limitations upon request the Department prevents publishers from guarding" against the i>enalties of orders of exclusion. 3. Publishers whose periodicals are so excluded are accorded no protection by the courts against unjust exclusions, not even though the exclusion be made in manifest bad faith. As the law stands, the Postmaster General's dic- tum, right or wrong, and whether with good intent or evil intent, is abso- lute. 4. In practice the Post Office De- partment excludes periodicals from the mails for publishing articles de- nounced as obscene, which in fact are not obscene. 5. The law as it now stands affords officials of the Post Office Department a degree of opportunity for corrupt discrimination in excluding periodi- cals, which it is unsafe to repose in any official and which ought to be carefully guarded against by Con- gress. I About the middle of August last, we were advised that the is- sue of "Lucifer" of August 3 had been excluded from the mails by postal order. According to our information, the matter specified as objectionable was in a para- graph of each of two indicated ar- ticles. The first of these paragraphs was clearly not obnoxious to the law, unless President Roosevelt's observations on race suicide were obnoxious to it; the second was no more so, unless a book it named by title is on the postal index ex- purgatorius. We should have no hesitation in republishing both paragraphs for the purpose of showing their innocence, were it not for the fact that the Post Office Department has them now on its index expurgatorius. This fact alone, were we to republish them here, would subject this is- sue of The Public to the risk of ex- clusion from the mails by order of the Post Office Department, and without possibility of protection from the courts. Upon examining the articles in question we wrote, August 12, 1905, to the Chicago postmaster as follows: Mr. Moses Harman. the publisher of "Lucifer the Light Bearer." which is entered at the Chicgo post office, writes us to the effect that his issue of August 3d was submitted to your office for mailing; that your office ad- vised that the first two articles of the issue were unmailable under sec- tion 497 of the Postal Laws and Regu- lations; and that the question is now before the Department at Washington awaiting its decision, the issue of Lu- cifer for August 3d being meanwhile practically denied circulation through the mails. The first article he indicates is Signed . . . and the second purports to be an extract from an article in the . . . by . . .* I have read the articles with a good deal of carfe, and fail to find in them anything ihat can possibly, either in thought or phrase, fall within what I should sup- * Name omitted for reasons stated in the next note. pose would be considered a fair in- terpretation of the section of the Postal Laws and Regulations referred to above. If the articles were in harmony with my own views, I should never think of refusing them admission to my columns, although I am extremely careful, entirely apart from any con- sideration of the postal laws and regu- lations, to avoid giving offense with reference to the general subject with which these articles are allied. I can £eeno reason whatever for refusing them admission to any publication on any other ground than that, as in my case, Ihey are out of harmony with its edito- rial policy. I am therefore con- strained to believe that there must be some mistake or misunderstanding. It does not seem to me possible that your office would take the action which the publisher of Lucifer tells me has been taken respecting these articles. May I therefore respectfully ask you to inform me of the facts so far as your office is concerned? The reply of the Chicago post- master, promptly made and bear- ing the date of August 14, was as follows: Replying to yours of August 12, concerning the publication "Lucifer," the issue of August 3 contains obscene literature, judged by the precedent set by the Department at Washington in its rulings on this publication. The alleged objectionable matter is found m the . . . paragraph,* beginning . . . in the . . . column of page . . . also in the . . . paragraph from the bottom of the same column, beginning . . . In this paragraph a pamphlet is ad- vertised which contains obscene mat- ter. If the matter is not obscene in the meaning of the law. the ruling of the Department at Washington will ren- der the matter mailable, and no dam- age will result to the publication. There has been no misunderstanding on the part of this office in its action on this issue of the publication. This action is entirely within the Depart- mental instructions, and so far in the history of this publication the action of this oflace has been upheld by the Department. The paragraphs specified in the postmaster's letter, the specific reference to which we omit for reasons explained in the footnote, were the same paragraphs as those to which our attention had been originally called. The second one was hel,d to be objectionable only • We omit the specific references made In the Postmaster's letter, because their inclusion here migh't subject this Is- sue of The Public to suppression by order of the postal censor. The same act of Congress by authority of which *'Lucifer" was censored for publish- ing those articles, provides also that "no- tice of any kind giving Information, direct- ly or indirectly, where or how, or of whom or by what means an "obscene . . . pub- lication of an indecent character" "may be obtained," is itself "non-mailable matter." 10 because it named a book which ia on the postal index expurga- torius. This letter from the Chicago postmaster throws some light on the indifference of the postal au- thorities to personal rights. "If the matter is not obscene," calmly writes the Chicago postmaster (doubtless by the hand of a bu- reaucratic subordinate), "the rul- ing of the Department at Wash- ington will render the matter mailable, and no damage will re- sult to the publication/^ No damage will result to the publica- tion! A whole issue of a publica- tion may be stopped while a bureau at Washington leisurely consid- ers whether it contains obscenity, and if the bureau's decision is fa- vorable, "no damage will result to the publication" ! This discloses a queer notion of the nature of newspaper property. However, as to our inquiry the Chicago post- master's letter was as specific as Since the censors have already decided that the articles in question are obscene and indecent, they might decide that the naming of them by title and page in con- nection with the name of the publication in which they appeared, is a notice makinjr the paper publishing it also' guilty under the statute and therefore subject to sup- pression. Were they to so decide, they could suppress this issue of The Public, and we should be without protection or re- dress or any power to get a judicial triaL 11 could be required; and we await ed the final action of the Depart- ment upon the postmaster's order of exclusion. Meanwhile the Chicago post- master had found it necessary, in accordance with the precedents of the Department, to exclude also the issue of "Lucifer" of Au- gust 17th. In this instance the accusation, as reported to us, was plainly im- aginary. It rested in part upon the republication of an editorial from tlic ^^'o]llal^s Journal, of Boston, the ii;Mi<mal woman suf- frage organ, iuid oiio of the purest and nio.s! icjMiijiblc jioiiod icals in the United States, and in part upon an extract from an of- ficial report of the Agricultural Department of the United States government. We thereupon wrote this letter, dated August 20th, to the Chicago postmaster: Thank you for your prompt, cour- teous and full reply of August 14th to mine of August 12th, in which I had inquired relative to denial of mail serv- ice to the edition of the paper Lucifer 01 August 3d. In one respect you misunderstood me. It was not my intention to imply that your office is acting recklessly with reference to the policy of the De- 12 partment, or contrary to Departmental instructions. I was only seeking in- formation as to the policy, rulings and instruQtions of the Department as ap- plied by you in a particular case. And now I must trouble you again in the same way. I am informed that the issue of Lucifer, of August 17th, also has been refused mail service, and that the refusal is based on the charge that an article reproduced in it from the Woman's Journal, of Bos- ton, and written by one of the editors of that paper, Alice Stone Blackwell,. is unmailable under section 497 of Postal Laws and Regulations. As the Woman's Journal is the principal jour- nalistic representative of the woman suffrage movement in the United States, and is everywhere respected as a pure and able publication, and Miss Blackwell is a woman of national repu- tation with a stainless character, this action of your office is of peculiar im- portance and of exceptional public concern. The matter also concerns me person- ally, for in entire good faith, I also have reproduced an extract from Miss Blackwell's article. Whether the part I have reproduced includes any of the article to which you are said to ob- ject, I cannot positively know untir I learn definitely from you the particu- lar part or parts of that article (the whole and every part of which seem to me a thoroughly clean and just criticism of the present postal admin- istration) to which postal objection is made and for the republication of 13 which the mail service is denied to Lucifer of August 17,— if such service has been denied on account of any- thing contained in Miss Blackwell's ar- ticle. Both for my own guidance, there- fore, and also for legitimate public use, will you kindly indicate to me spe- cifically, in such way as you think proper, what are the grounds for the exclusion from the mails of the edi- tion of Lucifer of August 17th. The postmaster's reply, bearing date of August 29th, was as fol- lows: Replying 4:o yours of August 26, three pounds of the publication "Luci- fer," of the issue of August 17, were offered for mailing at this office, and the copies are held, awaiting decision by the Department at Washington as to whether or not they are mailable under Sec. 497, P. L. & R. The matter to which the attention of the Department has been especially drawn by this oflSce is the article at the head of the . . . column of page . . ., and the . . . lines at the . . . of the . . . column of page . . .* Judging by precedent, this matter is In violation of Sec. 497, and under postal instructions it is the duty of this office to submit the matter to the Department at Washingon for a ruling Owing to the indefiniteness of this letter from the Postmaster, • Indicating the articles containing quota- tion from U. S. Agricultural Report and two lines of the Woman's Journal article. 14 we made the following further in- quiry, in a letter to him bearing date of August 30th: Thank you for your reply of the 29tii to mine of 26th, in re issue of Lu- cifer of August 17th. You say that "the attention of th« Department has been especially drawn" by your office to "the article at the ... of the . . . column of page . . ., and the . . . lines at the . . . of the . . . column of page ..." As you qualify your statement by the word "especially," may I further ask whether you acted also on any other part of the article on page . . ., or on any other article in the issue in question? And if it would be proper for you to give it, I should like the follow- ing additional information regarding the objectionability of the article at the head of the . . . column of page 1. Does the objection apply to the use of the title of Dr. 's book in the . . . line of the text of that article? 2. Does it apply to the language of the comparison between mankind and horse kind in lines ....... and . . . of the text of the article? 3. Does it apply to the quotation in line . . . of the text of the article, purporting to be from page ... of a "Special Report on Diseases of the Korse" prepared under the direction of Dr. D. E. Salmon, and issued by the Bureau of Animal Industry in the United States Department of Agricul- ture? 15 4. Does it apply to the quotation in lines . . . and ... of the text of the article in question, purporting to be fiom the text of the above described report of the Agricultural department? 5. Does it apply to the use of the title of Dr. — — 's book in the . . . line of the text of the article in ques- tion? Noting what you say to the effect that the articles in question are in vio- lation of section 497 according to prece- dent, and that it is your duty under postal instructions to submit them to the Department for a ruling, I wish to assure you of my absolute confidence in your good faith and that of your office. Permit me also to apologize for presuming to interrogate you so minutely as I do in this letter. Be- lieve me, I am far from desiring to annoy you, or your office, or the De- partment. But it seems to me of the utmost importance that editors and the reading public should know the extent of the limitations that the rulings of the Department are impos- ing upon editorial discussion, quota- tion, etc., and it is only to this end that I trouble you.* Following was the Chicago postmaster^s reply of September 1st to the foregoing letter: Replying to yours of August 30, rela- tive to the publication **Lucifer," I cannot answer your specific questions with a direct "yes" or "no." I see ♦ Specific references omitted for reasons stated in previous foot note. 16 no necessity for this office to explain its objection to this printed matter in tho manner you have prescribed. The article in question may be "obscene," within the meaning of the law. That in for the Department at Washington to decide. To quote your statement, it may be "of the utmost importance that ed- itors and the reading public should know the extent of the limitations .that the rulings of the Department are imposing upon editorial discussion, quotations, etc," but it is not within the province of this office to interpret the law. That is the prerogative of the Department at Washington. This office can only refer you to the statutes and to the rulings of the Department Id specific cases. In answer to the first question of yours of August 30, all references to the book ". . ."* were marked in the copy sent to the Department by this office. These references are not neces- sarily objectionable. The quotation from the book may be. Having been refused in the pre- ceding letter the information we sought, and referred therein "to the rulings of the Department in specific cases," we addressed the Postmaster General the follow- ing letter dated September 6th : Will you kindly examine the in- * Name of book omitfed for reasons here- tofore given. The book mentioned in the Postmaster's letter is not the U. S. Agri- cultural Report, but Dr. 's book en- UUed ". . . ." 17 closed correspondence between my- self and the Postmaster at Chicago and, if in your judgment proper to do so, favor me with the information which the Chicago Postmaster does not regard it proper for his office to furnish? To facilitate your examination of the inclosures, I describe them as fol- lows: 1. My letter of August 26 asking (for legitimate public use) for a specifica- tion of the grounds for the Chicago Postmaster's exclusion from the mails of the edition of the Chicago periodical "Lucifer," of August 17, 1905. 2. The Postmaster's response of Aug- ust 29, indicating the matter to which the attention of your Department was "especially drawn" by the Chicago post office as furnishing grounds for the exclusion. 3. My reply of August 30th, asking specific questions, with a view to ascertaining exactly, and all, the mat- ter objected to in the edition of "Lu- cifer" in question, the Postmaster hav- ing qualified his response to my for- mer letter with the word "especially," as you will observe by reference to the copy of his response inclosed. 4. The Postmaster's reply of Septem- ber 1, stating that he sees no necessity for explaining his objection to the printed matter in question in the man- ner I have requested, and referring to your Department. My specific requests of your Depart- ment are: 18 First, Whether the Chicago Postmas- ter, in denying mail service to the is- sue of Lucifer of August 17, noted as objectionable any other part or parts of that issue than the parts described by him in his letters to me of August 2\i and September 1. If so, what part or parts? Second. Whether the objections he noted applied to the issue of Lucifer in question, as indicated by any or all of those questions in my letter to him of August 30th, which are therein dis- tinguished by the numerals 2, 3 and 4. As I stated in my letter of August 30 to the Chicago Postmaster, it is no part of my purpose to annoy your Department, or any branch of it, with impertinent inquiries. I may add that I have no intention of soliciting any information that the general public have no right to know. But I shall be greatly obliged if your Department will give me the information solicitei above, so far as it may be within the bounds of propriety, and, to save fur- ther inquiry from me, will be sufficiently specific with reference to any of my requests that you may think improper, as to assure me that the failure to re ply is because they are improper and not because they are accidentally over- looked. The reply to the foregoing let- ter was dated September 13, and came from the First Assistant Postmaster General, who wrote: In reply to your letter of the 6th instant to the Postmaster General, you 19 are informed that this Department can- rot undertake to specify In detail the objectionable matter appearing in the issue of the periodical, "Lucifer," of August 17, 1905, which caused the ex- clusion of that issue from the mails. This reply was so obviously cin attempt to*^ evade responsibility, and so manifestly indicative of a disposition to censor the mails not only arbitrarily but secretly, thai we renewed our inxjuiries. This seemed necessary in order to. make sure that the foregoing let- ter w^as deliberately in execution of a policy of secret censorship in- ^ stituted by the Department, and not merely the irresponsible act of a careless first assistant. Our letter renewing our previ- ous inquiries was also addressed to the Postmaster General. It bore date September 18, and as will be noticed from its reproduc- tion below it sought the informa- tion on the special ground that the Department's decision had made a precedent, the limitations of which ought to be divulged upon application by persons like- ly to be affected by it in conduct- ing their business: I am in receipt of reply of the 13th by the First Assistant Postmaster General to my letter of inquiry of the 6th, in which the First Assistant Post- master General advises me that your 20 "Department cannot undertake to specify in detail the objectionable mat- ter appearing in the issue of the pe- riodical 'Lucifer' of August 17, 1905, which caused the exclusion of that issue from the mails." Since receiving that letter I am in- formed that your Department has sus- tained the Postmaster at Chicago la his exclusion of the issue of ''Luci- fer" of August 17, and that this has been done because in that issue it published an editorial ar- ticle entitled ". . ." *and an ar- ticle copied from the Woman's Journal, entitled '*. . ." Inasmuch as the matter has been finally decided by your Department, cind is no longer un- der advisement, I wish to ascertain the extent of your adjudication, for the purpose of understanding its ef- fect as a precedent. As t^ the article from the Woman's Journal, your adjudication is suflacient- ly specific in one lespect, namely, the . . lines at the top of the . . . col- umn of page ... of "Lucifer" of Aug- ust 17, and as to that I have no ques- tions to ask. As to the other part of the same ar- ticle, the matter about . . . way down the . . . column of page ... of "Lu- cifer," which you have adjudicated to te objectionable, will you kindly in- form me whether or not your adjudi- cation rests only or at all upon the naming there of the title of a book? * Titles of editorials are here omitted for precautionarj' reasons. See preceding- foot- notes. 21 I should also like to know, whether your adjudication as to the Woman's Journal article in "Lucifer" rests upon anything else than the naming of that book, and ui)on the . . . lines at the ... of the . . . column of page . . . Finally, as to the article in **Lu- cifer" entitled "., . .'* it seems to me especially important, since the Post- master at Chicago advises me that he acts in these questions upon the prece- dents your Department establishes, that I should know the full bearing of the precedent established with refer- ence to this particular article. The article, as you will recall, mentions the title of a book, and quotes from an official report of the United States De- partment of Agriculture. Will you kindly inform me whether your adjudi- cation as to this article rests upon the naming of the book, or the quota- tion from the Agricultural Depart- ment's report, or both? Please understand me. I am not en- deavoring to probe the mental proc- esses whereby the conclusions of >our Department were arrived at. All I am asking for is the extent of the conclusions themselves, in so far as they go to make a precedent. Regretting what seems to me to be the necessity for further troubling you in this matter, I am, etc. The reply of the Department to the foregoing letter confirmed the indications of the First Assist- ant's letter of the 15th. It showed that arbitrary and secret censor- 22 ship is a deliberate policy of the Department; either that, or else that F. H. Hitelieock, First Assist- ant Postmaster General, deliber- ately misrepresented the Depart- ment. For the reply, signed by F. H. Hitchcock as First Assistant Postmaster General, and dated September 27th, was as follows: Your letter of the 18th instant, ad- dressed to the Postmaster General, has teen referred to this oflace for reply. With reference to ycmr questions rela- tive to certain objectionable articles which appeared in the issue of the pub- lication "Lucifer," of August 17th, you are informed that the position of the •Department in the matter was stated in a letter to you bearing date of the 13th instant. We invite attention to the bu- reaucratic superciliousness of this reply to proper questions re- spectfully asked. The Depart- ment refuses to answer further than by reference to its prior let- ter. In its prior letter it declined to "undertake to specify in detail the objectionable matter," etc. Now what had we asked? Observe the substance of our questions and the Department's reply: Question: Did the Depart- ment's adjudication as to a cer- tain part of a certain article "rest only or at all upon the naming there of the title of a book?'' 23 Answer: The Department *^can- not undertake to specify in detail the objectionable matter.'' Question: Did the Depart- ment's adjudication as to the Woman's Journal article rest upon anything else than the name of a book and certain indicated lines? Answer: The Department ^^cannot undertake to specify in detail the objectionable matter." Question: One of the indicated articles "mentions the title of a book, and quotes from an official report of the United States De- partment of Agriculture. Will you kindly inform me whether youradjudicationas to this article rests upon the naming of the book, or the quotation from the Agricul- tural Department's report, or both?" Answer: The Department "can- not undertake to specify in detail the objectionable matter." Soon after the foregoing corre- spondence, we learned of the cen- sorship by the Post Office Depart- ment of a subsequent issue of "Lucifer," the issue of October 12th. According to a still later is sue of Lucifer, the circumstan- ces of this censorship were these: One of the articles in that issue 24 of Lucifer, to which the Post Of- fice Department was understood to have objected, was merely a catalogue of books. Among the authors were e|^ohn Stuart Mill, August Bebel and other thinkers of reputation; and none of them is apparently obscene unless every serious discussion of the philos- ophy and physiology of sex is to be considered as in that abhorrent category. The other article con- tains a quotation from the Lon- don Fortnightly Review, which in- cludes one from Bernard Shaw's ^'Man and Superman,'' proposing pensions as a preventive of what President Roosevelt calls race sui- cide. Upon learning of the suppres- sion of this issue of Lucifer we addressed the following letter of inquiry to the Postmaster Gener- al, under date of October 20th: I am informed that the Chicago postmaster has excluded from the mails the issue of the Chicago paper named "Lucifer," of October 12, 1905, and that the exclusion is based upon an article on page . . .* first and . . . columns, containing a descriptive cata- logue of books, and upon an article on page . . . second column, containing a quotation from Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman." I am also informed that your Department has sustained ♦ See preceding foot noteft. 25 this action of the Chicago postmaster. As your decision constitutes a prece- dent by which the Chicago postmaster, as he has informed me relative to your decisions in similar cases heretofore, will be governed in* future cases, will you oblige me with the following in- formation: 1. Has your Department decided that "Lucifer," of October 12, is unmailable, and if so, for what cause? 2. Is it because on page . . . that pa- per names and tells where to obtain any unmailable book or books? 3. Is it because of its quotation on page . . . from Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman"? 4. If The Public in commenting upon this decision of your Department, were to reproduce the said catalogue of books, or the said quotation from Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman,*' would the postmaster at Chicago be required to consider this decision of your Department in the "Lucifer" case as a precedent and accordingly to exclude that issue of The Public from the mails? I make this request as responsible editor of The Public, for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent, under precedents made by your Department. I shall be at liberty, in criticising your decision in the "Lucifer" case, to state the facts, without subjecting The Pub- lic to exclusion from the mails by your Department. To this inquiry we received the following response from the office of the First Assistant Postmaster General: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, to the Post- master General, in reference to the publication "Lucifer.** In reply to your inquiry you are in- formed that the Postmaster at Chi- cago was instructed to decline to ac- cept for mailing copies of "Lucifer,"' of the issue of October 12, 1905, for the reason that such number, which was submitted to the Department, con- tained matter of an obscene character. As you were advised under date of the 13th ultimo in reference to an earlier issue of "Lucifer,** it is not practicable for the Department to at- tempt to point out all the offensive passages upon which the exclusion of the issue from the mails was based, nor can the Department undertake to state what would or would not be un- mailable, in advance of the matter be- ing actually presented for transmis- sion in the mails. A reduction of this correspond- ence also to questions and an- swers produces the following rather remarkable result: Question: Does the Depart- ment exclude the issue of the pa- per in question because it "names and tells where to obtain any un- mailable book or books?" Answer: "It is not practica- ble for the Department to attempt to point out all the offensive pas- 27 sages upon which the exclusion of the issue from the mails is based/' Question: Is it because of the quotation from Bernard Shaw's ^•Man and Superman''? Answer: ^'It is not practicable for the Department to attempt to point out all the offensive pas- sages' upon which the exclusion of the issue from the mails is based." Question: If The Public were "to reproduce the said catalogue of books, or the said quotation from Bernard Shaw^'s ^Man and Sui>erman/ would llic ]>ostmaster at Chicago be rcMiuiKMl to consid- er this decision as a ]>r('cedent and accordingly to exclude that issue of The Public from the mails?" Answ(M': The Department can- not nndciiake "to state what w^ould or would not be unmail- able in advance of the mattcM- Ix - ing actually presented for trans- mission in the mails." Now, why was it impracticable for the Department to state whether or not the exclusion of Lucifer w^as because it printed the names and jdaces for procuring certain books? The Department was not asked "to point out all of- fensivc' ])assages." And why was it impracticable for the Dcjiartinent to state whether 28 or not the paper in question was ^excluded because of its quotation from "Man and Supeiinaif'? To do this it was not necessary '^to point out all ott'ensive i>assages." Finally, why couldn't the De- partment undertake to inform us whether the jiostmaster at Chi- cago would be required to consid- er the decision in the Lucifer case as a precedent? What is the meaning of refusals by the De- partment to state in advance of mailing whether matter excluded from the mail when published by one periodical would be unmail- able if published by another? This last question almost answers itself. II We have now proved our asser- tions. But that there may be no reasonable question of our having done so, let us summarize the as- sertions and the proof in support of them. First. We have proved by the foregoing correspondence that any periodical is subject to exclu- sion from the mails as a purveyor of obscenity, upon the mere arbi- trary order of administrative post oflfice officials. Second. We have proved, also by the foregoing correspondence, that exclusion orders are made by 29 the Post Office Department osten- sibly in accordance with its own rulings as to what constitutes ob- scenity, and that these rulings, though treated as precedents by postmasters, are kept profoundly secret by the Department. Third. We have proved by ref- erence to a previous article on this general subject (p. 424), which is too lengthy to be reproduced here, that the courts hold decisions of the Postmaster General in these matters to be absolutely beyond the power of the judiciary to over- ride or restrain, even though he decide without evidence and in manifest bad faith. Fourth. We have proved by the above correspondence, supple- mented now by the best testimony possible, in view of the necessity the Department imposes upon us of proving the negative of an issue on which it holds the affirmative and possesses all the affirmative evidence if there be any, that in practice the Department does ex- clude from the mails for obscenity periodicals which in fact are not obscene. The correspondence proves the first part of this con- tention, namely, that the Depart- ment excludes periodicals alleged to contain obscene articles. As to the second and essential part of the contention, namely, that 30 the articles are in fact not ob- scene, the Department refuses to indicate the decisive facts, which are within its own control and in the nature of things cannot be known to outsiders. The sev- eral articles indicated above by the Chicago postmaster as cause for exclusion are clearly not ob- scene. The fact that the Depart- ment refuses to particularize should raise a reasonable pre- sumption that there is nothing which it can particularize. And in support of this presumption we now positively testify, after read- ing the excluded papers through, that they in fact contain no word, phrase or thought which can with any show of reason be character- ized as obscene. Five. It is not necessary to prove that these circumstances af- ford dangerous opportunities for corruption in the Post Office De- partment. When the law permits postal officials to exclude from the mails any periodical, arbitrar- ily in their own discretion, with no appeal to the courts, upon the bare pretense that they contain obscenity but without any re- quirement that the alleged ob> scenity be particularized with suf- ficient definiteness to permit of a judgment upon the good faith of 31 the exclusion, and when tJie De- partment passes upon the ques- tion not only arbitrarily but in se- cret, the opportunities for secret corruption are so enormous that only the corruptible official in the place for corrupting possibili- ties is necessary to produce a regime of corruption. We submit, then, that we have established all that in Ibis ni licle we set out to prove. Any [m riodic- al may be peremptorily cxc luded from the mails as a purveyor of obscenity though it contain noth- ing obscene, and this upon th^» mere order of administrative postal officials; exclusion orders are made in alleged accordance with secret precedents, the lim- itations of which are withheld from publishers seeking to adapt their editorial rights to postal rulings; the courts declare them- selves powerless to interfere, even though exclusions be made with- out evidence and in manifest bad faith; the Post Office Department does in fact in this arbitrary man- ner exclude from the mails as ob- scene, periodicals which in fact are not obscene. Therefore, as the law^ now stands, it affords a degree of opportunity for corrupt dis- crimination and oppression which it is unsafe to repose in any of- 32 ficial and which ought to be guard- ed against by Congress. Ill The remedy for this fungus growth upon the postal service, a service originally intended only for a national convenience but now turned into a national police system which operates through ir- responsible "administrative proc- ess" and from a "star chamber" tribunal, lies with Congress. Shall the right to mail service in the United States, now become a necessity of the common life, de- pend upon the caprice, the bigotry or the corruptibility of one man at the head of a AVashington depart- ment or his subordinate at the head of a bureau? That question is distinctly raised. The courts have answered, Yes. What has Congress to say? 33 The Free Speech League employs its funds mainly for printing and mailing circulars and pamphlets to make known to influential persons the pre- sent pressing and increasing dangers to liberty of the press and mails. Many are stupidly blind to the facts; many are slow to awaken to their im- portance, and the great mass are content to let some one else protest and pay costs. The few who feel inspired to help us hold what we have of free press and regain what has been lost through lack of ' 'eter- nal vigilance/ may send their contributions to the Treasurer, E. B. Foote, Jr., 120 Lexing- ton Ave., New York City. 84 COPIES OF THIS PAMPHLET will be furnished on the following terms: MAILED TO ANY ADDRESS, POSTPAID Single Copy . $0.03 100 Copies, mailed in bulk . . 1.75 100 Copies, to varying addresses 3.00 Our Advancing Postal Censorship Reprinted from THE PUBLIC of August 12, 1905. 28 Pages, 3 cents, postpaid; 100 copies, $1.50, postpaid. The publishers will send free f.o any address their catalog-ue of books relating" to funda- mental democracy. The Public Publishing Company First National Bank Building:, CHICAGO, ILL 36 The Public LOUIS F. POST, EDITOR A Journal of Fundamental Democracy and a Weekly Narrative of History in the Making HAS THESE PRINCIPAL FEATURES: A CONCISE, but complete, interesting and non-partisan weekly history of the world, each instalment containing page references to earlier mention of the events noted, so that the issues together form an up- to-date narrative, most handy to read and consult, and in best form for binding and preservation, with full yearly index. ^ Searching and fearless editorial dis- cussion of present affairs in the spirit of that clause of the Declaration of Inde- pendence which declares that *'all men are created equal.*' ^,\ Striking selections from contempora- neous publications, of interest and affording instruction; and candid reviews of really important books. Ti Graphic and timely cartoons by J. W. Bengough. 36 Comments You are doing a great work with The Public .... You teach the teachers, and the good goes broadening down surely if slowly. — Wm. Lloyd Garri- son, Lexington, Mass. I enjoy The Public. It has broadened my views of humanity. — A. J. Inloes, Secretary Board of Education, Bingham- ton, N. Y. The Public gets better every issue. A. B. Bradford, Clarkrange, Tenn. When I miss The Public I feel as if I had lost a sincere and intellectual friend. — Hon. Edgar L. Ryder, Ossining, N. Y. SUBSCRIPTIONS Yearly. $i . oo Half yearly 50 Quarterly 25 Free of postage in United States, Canada, Cuba and Mexico. SAMPLE COPIES ON APPLICATION The Public Publishing Company First INationol Bank Building CHICAGO. ILL. THE PROPHET SERIES Each in attractive paper covef , with portrait, size of pag-e 3^4: in. x 8>^ in. 1. A GREAT INIQUITY By COUNT LEO TOLSTOY An article on property in land. 48 pages, 10 cents, postpaid; 12 copies for $1.00, postpaid. 2. GERRIT SMITH ON LAND MONOPOLY With introduction by Wm. Lloyd Garrison, the younger. 32 pages, 10 cents, postpaid; 12 copies for $i.oo, postpaid. ,3. JOHN P. ALTGELD; a Sketch By LOUIS F. POST An appreciative biographical sketch of the late governor of Illinois, with portrait reproduced from the celebrated painting by Ralph Clarkson. 32 pages, 10 cents, postpaid ; 12 copies for $1.00, postpaid. 4. TOM L. JOHNSON; a Sketch By LOUIS F. POST The fullest biographical sketch yet written of the thrice-elected Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, with an account of his work as "the best mayor of the best governed city in the United States," 60 pages, 15 cents, postpaid; 7 copies for $1.00, postpaid THE PUBLIC PUBLISHING CO. First National Bank Baiidingr, CHICAGO, ILL. A GREAT INIQUITY By LEO TOLSTOY An Article on Property in Land (Reprinted from The London Times and from The Public.) It seems to me that Tolstoy has made* a most remarkable, though brief, statement of the whole question. His illustrations are well-nigh perfect and his appeal is irresistible. All in all, it is tht clearest and most forcible statemeut of this great human problem that I have seen for a long time. — Victor C. Alder son, Presideyit Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colo, Popular edition, paper, 48 pages, 5%x3, 4 cents a copy, postpaid; loo copies to one address, $2.25- to vary- ing addresses, $3.50— postpaid. Illustrated edition, paper cover, 48 pages, 8)^x334:, 10 cents a copy, post- paid; 12 copies for $1.00, postpaid. Smaller Profits, Reduced Salaries and Lower Wages THE CONDITION, THE CAUSE, THE CURE By GEORGE L. RUSBY 1 6 mo, 80 pages, 5 cents a copy, post- paid; 10 copies, 40 cents, postpaid. THE PUBLIC PUBLISHING COMPANY First National Bank Building, Chicago. 39 T HE OPEN SHOP AND HE CLOSED SHOP By LOUIS F. POST Editor of The Public "It is the most terse, pithy and con- clusive article upon the subject tha^ has been published. All wage earners, organ- ized or unorganized, should read it." — John FiTZPATRicK, Organizer Chicago Federation of Labor. "The logic of the article appeals vvith great force to every candid mind, aad I sincerely hope it will be widely read, not only by working people, but also by employers and business men." — Joi n C. Harding, Organizer Chicago Typograph- ical Union No. i6. Paper, 64 pages, 5%x3. 5 cents a copy; by mail, 6 cents. One dozen copies, 50 cents; by mail, 56 cents. 100 copies to one address, $3.50— to varying addresses, $4.75 — postpaid. The publishers issue other pamphlets and a variety of books, together with The Public, and are devoted entirely to the promulgation of the best literature relating to real or fundamental democracy (in the broad sense of the word) Sample copies of The Public and book cata- logue will be sent on request. THE PUBLIC PUBLISHING COMPANY First National Bank Building, CHICAGO 40 14 DAY USE IBTURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROW] LOAN DEPT. Ills book is due on the last date stamped below, on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall m \9W3'J Tt^ RECEDED -B«- inT?8'fi.?-QPN MftYe i9£n [I'-h^o . h^ U8kmi<Y uS£^ ^^^^=^' m^^ RECD LD APR 27 1961 UBRAa> USE M^ ^?961 MAY 22 1987 KiiA.^ l96^ R' APRS 2 198 aM 63Vt QRcuuriQN oa T* 01 A__Kn«v,^ »«A General Library