fraud or swindle the public, or to those wishing to spread material subversive to the sovereignty of the United States Government. Here, again, as with limitations mentioned in the previous paragraphs, we must face distinctions between material and moral dangers. Just as the public should be protected against dynamite sticks in the mails, so should it also be protected against arsonists, murderers, extortionists and swindlers, or any others whose aim is material harm to other individuals. But what about "subversive" material? "Subversive." like "obscene," is a very elastic term, and can be stretched considerably beyond "armed rebellion" to include the purely moral issues of self-determination, or even intelligent criticism. Is a "socialist" tract to be considered "subservive," as a "capitalist" tract might be in the U.S.S.R.?

Besides the term, "obscene," there are other descriptive words in the statute which presumably, are intended to clarify the meaning of "obcenity." These are, "lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent, immoral, vile." However, someone once remarked that a definition of obscenity must consist of something more than a string of loose synonyms; and while the words repeated above have the sanction of centuries of legal usage, they do not define the basic term, much less lift it out of the subjective category. Apparently, the closest that persons have come, in simple terms, to giving "obscenity" an objective definition is by saying that it relates primarily to material inciting to sexual interests and/or gratifications. But this raises far more issues than it settles. For example, under what circumstances or what context could erotic references in literature or the arts be classed as "obscene"? Would a description of, or reference to matrimonial intercourse be "obscene"? Or does "obscenity" refer merely to illicit sexual

interest, or behavior? If so, does it include biological "normal" sexual interests or activities, or only those classed as "perverse"? Is "obscenity" a quality to be determined solely within the context of the work of literature or art itself, or are actual or probable individual reactions to be taken into account? If so, whose reactions? The Postal Inspector's? The Judge's? A hypothetical "average, normal reaction"? These questions have been argued interminably in the courts, which have fortunately, the final responsibility of deciding, and have gone along way towards reaching just estimates and decisions. The fact remains, however, that Postal Inspectors also make interim decisions, and unless injured parties have the means to fight it out in the courts, their decision is final. In passing, it is interesting to note how closely obscenity statutes parallel the language of sex laws, in the various states, in which the term "lewd" (also "dissolute" etc., etc.) is typical of the language of complaint and indictment, leading again to the question, by whose standards is this writing, picture, object, or act lewd, dissolute, lascivious, filthy, indecent, immoral, or vile?

Let us assume that it is proper for U. S. Postal Authorities to have authority to inspect the contents of, and impound, if deemed necessary, mail of certain classes, and for certain causes, and to institute actions against senders. However, these powers do not extend to first class mail, which may be legally opened in transit by Postal Inspectors only if in possession of a warrant, issued after showing probable cause. This immunity of first class mail to inspection of any kind was upheld in the courts as early as 1877. Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727,729. In that case, this immunity was found as positively guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Con-

9