731; Thllre.is ,a long series of dec;ided by the U.$,;v. Keokuk & H. Bridge CO.,,4.5'Fed. Rep.,
as aboxestated. But the congress coulel delegate, as it has dC?, its authority,in, the premises to the secretary of war. c.oD:clpj;1ion is, that it. could, not. The reasons for this conclusion are so :well. fu,lly setf()rth byJudgeSHIRAs in U. S: v . .Keokuk & H. Brj,dge.Co,., cited above, that it is,,sufficient to refer to that case, and to I, do, my conpurrencein the reasoning and conclusions of the ,', ,',," , , '. :lfl'he, ;:yerdict against: the, defendants will be set aside" and the judgQ(thecpurt will,·be that :4 ,and 5 of the ri,ver and harb,or IWt) Qf;Septeml>er upon which the information is based, a,re andt9at go henpe, without day.
· . 't
(Di.8trict o01frt, S. D. lHino1& January, 1888.)
MATTER-SEALEP , "
lL,S.UoIE-PoBLfCATION OF WRiTING>.", ,
ThisWRs an indictment under section 3893" Rev. St. U. S., for mailing 9,bscene writings.:, There were three counts, each charging dein the U1ail orthe United States, for mailing and pertain leW,d, and lascivious writing,purporting to.. be a letter," etc., said is so lewd, lascivipus, and 0 bsocene would be offensive,to the court here,and improper to be pla,cedupon .therecords thereof, which said then and there was inclosed in a said letter being then and there aqetc. A motion, was made to quash the indictment on the ground,that the obsceJle, lewd,and lascivious expressions were not set f,Qrth in the indictment,which l110tionwas overruled by the court. DefendaJlt plea of "Guilty," and moved for arrest Qf juqgment-'-Jiir8t, oQtbeground that the statute did include priva·te ,which were sent under cover of ,a seal, such as letters, etcl, ·butwas intended to emhrace only such matt,er as.. w8s classed unde;ll,thehead of pUblications, SUQh as circulars, etc., which were sent subject to the sCfutinyofpo'3tmasters, and to be detained by them in case Qf th,ir being to be nonmailable matter; and l second,
l!:X PARTE GEISLER.
that the sending of such letters did not constitute a publication of the writings therein inclosed." . James A. OonnoUy, U. S. Dist. and Edward 'Roe, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United Statel" ", : John M. Palmer and Jame8 O. Robimon, for defendant.
TREAT, District Judge, (orally.) Since this statute has been amended by the insertion of the wotd "writing," I am of opinion that all writings.whether inclosed under a sealed envelope or not, signed or unsigned, that are of an obscene, lewd, or lascivious character. are nonmailable matt13r, and covered by the statute. As to the question raised regarding what constitutes a publieation, I shall hold that to inclose an obscene, lewd, or lascivious writing in a sealed envelope and mail it to another is a publication of that writing, and would place it within the power of the party receiving the letter to institute a prosecution for the offense.
(Circuit Court, N. D. Texas. June, 1889.)
CoUNTERFElTING-J"URISDICTION OP STATE COURTS.
The judiciary act of 1789. § 11, provides for the exclusive cognizance by the United St",tes courts of allofl'enses against the laws of the United States, unless such law·. otherwise direct. Act Congo 1825, § 20, (RAV. St. U. S. § 5457,) and section 26, (Rev. St. U. S. § 5328,) providing for the punishment of the counterfeiting of coin, deolare that "nothing in this act shall beconstrned to deprive the courts or the individual states of jul'isdiction of the laws of the several states over o11eoses made punishable by this act." Held, that· the state courts have power to punish counterfeiting under the state statutes.
or bring into this state, or have in his possession, with intent to pass as true, any counterfeit coin, knowing the same to be counterfeit, he shall be pnnished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years."
'Petition by Adam J. Geisler for Writ of Habeas<l>ryus. Article 463, Pen. Code Tex.· declares: "If any person, with intent to uefraud, shall pass, or offer to pass, 8S true,
The petitioner was indicted in the district court of Grayson county, Tex., for a violation of this article of the state law, was tried and convicted, and sentenced by the court, in pursuance of the verdict of the jury, to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for the term of two years. He now seeks discharge from imprisonment, on the ground that the court by which he was tried and sentenced had no jurisdiction of the offense with which he was charged, and of which he was convicted. S. W. Miner, for petitioner.' WOODS, Circuit Justice. The ground upon which the jurisdiction of the state court is denied is that the offense charged was an offense