Obscene

4 Includes what is foul or indecent, and what is immodest or calculated to excite impure desires. ^ Is applied to language spoken, written, or printed, and tq pictorial productions. Obscene, lewd, or lascivious publications of an indecent character, are neither mailable ' nor importable.' He who deposits such publications in the mails, and he who receives the same for circulation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of one hundred to five thousand dollars, with imprisonment for one to ten years, or both.^ The test is whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such influences, and into whose hands a publication of the sort may fall. A book need not have words which are in themselves obscene, in order to be obscene. Regard is had to the idea conveyed by the words used, in any substantial part of the publication. *' Obscenity " is that form of indecency which is calculated to promote general corruption of morajs. " Lewdness " has a tendency to excite lustful thoughts... The indictment need not specify in what respect a picture is unlawful.. One may have what views on religion he pleases, and publish the same, ]but not in connection with obscene matters sent through the mails." The prohibition applies to an obscene writing or letter inclosed in a sealed envelope.'" The pmpose is to exclude from the mails only such articles as are impure and immodest and tend to corrupt the morals.'^ The fact that the publications were sent in the real 1 Evans's Appeal, 58 Pa. 244 (1868), Strong, J. See also 123 Mass. 102; 22 N. J. E. 463; 2S Am. E. 35; 19 Alb. L. J. 323; 1 Williams, Ex. 144. ' "L. ob-loqui, to speak against: contradict. ' Bettner v. Holt, 70 Cal. 275 {1880), Foote, J. * L. obscenus, repulsive, foul. » [United States v. Lottis, 12 F. E. 673 (1882), Deady, D. J.: Worcester's Diet.; s. c, 8 Saw. 194. • Act 12 July, 1876; E. S. §§ 3893-94; 1 Sup. E. S. p. 239, Act 3 March, 1879: 1 Sup. E. S. p, 456. 'R. S. §2491; 22St. L. 489. » E. S. §■ 3394. See Addenda. "United States ti. Bennett, 16 Blateh. 336, 360-62,366- 69 (1879), cases, Blatchford, J. Definitions approved. United States v. Slenker, post. ■» United States u Gaylord, 11 Biss. 438 (1883), Treat, J.; Same v. Same, 17 F. E. 438 (1883), Drummond, J.; United States v. Hanover, ib. 444 (1883), cases; United States V. Fero, 18 id. 900 (1884), cases; Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 421 (1885). or supposed interest of science, philosophy, or morality is immaterial. The indictment should allege a scienter. An allegation that the accused "knowingly deposited" the objectionable matter cannot be extended to embrace an averment of scienter.^ The fact that post-bf Bce inspectors used test or decoy letters to bring to justice a person suspected of mailing obscene literature does not discredit their testimony.^ Any offense, which, in its^ nature and by its example, tends to the corruption of morals, as, the exhibition of an obscene picture, is indictable at common law." Whether matter published is obscene or not, is a question of law for the court. H the matter is too gross to be spread upon the records that fact may be averred as an excuse for not setting the matter out. But this rule is not general. ^ See Verbum, In haec. See also Book, 1; Decoy; Indecent; Naked, 1; Police, 2; Publicatioh, 2. ^1,^/30