communication among U. S. citizens in accordance therewith.

Some Legal Aspects

Justice Holmes, dissenting in U.S. ex. rel. Milw. Pub. Co. v Burleson, 255 U.S. 407, 437 (1921), said: "The United States may give up the Post Office when it sees fit: but while it carries it on, the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues. . .

He was referring, of course, to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says, in part, "Congress shall make no law

abridging the freedom of speech, or the press. ..."

However, as a limitation to our rights under the First Amendment, and as many have argued and are arguing today, in potential abrogation of these rights, in certain areas, stands this (postal) statute derived from title 18, Sec. 1461, of the United States Code: "Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character; and (et seq. to include 'any filthy, vile, or indecent thing, device, or substance') is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier." The wording to this legislation as to descriptive categories will be commented upon at a later point.

From the standpoint of the addresses, let it be noted that the key, the exonerating and absolving word is "non-mailable." This is mentioned because of reports that recipients of certain types of mail have been made illegally implicated in the alleged guilt, established by law, of the sender. However, the fact is that neither the statute quoted above nor any other related statute, gives the Postal Authorities as such any discrimina-

one

tory, discretionary or any other power whatever against the recipient of any mail. Illegal possession is, or course, quite another matter, falling within the scope of appropriate law-enforcement agencies, and it is not only possible, but often necessary, for Police and Postal Authorities to cooperate in certain cases. Be this as it may, the only present obligation and legal relationship between the Postal Services and any addressee is to deliver mail as promptly and properly as possible, so long as Postal Regulations are not infringed by so doing.

It is entirely to be expected that certain limitations must be placed upon the use of the mails. Such limitations apply when matter to be mailed would cause undue handling problems, in terms or size or weight, or when it could damage other mail, or constitute a hazard to the lives or health of others. Certain matter of the last-mentioned type falls within the purview of the "obscenity" statute for example, aphrodisiacs, or medicines or instruments to be used for abortion. However, "obscenity" in literature and the arts could not constitute a physical problem or danger, it effect, if any, being upon the minds and emotions of individuals, and possibly (though very indirectly) upon behavioral patterns. The questions at once arise: Is "obscenity" a moral danger? If so, how, and to what extent? Who is to be protected? Should Postal Authorities be charged with this protection?

To further clarify these issues, we should remind ourselves that "obscenity" in literature or the arts is not the only quality in these fields which is subject to Postal censorship, or other restrictive action. For example, in the "obscenity" statute, "indecent" has been also construed to mean matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assissination. Also, postal services are denied to those wishing to use them to de-