On demurrer, all the material facts averred in a bill of
complaint are admitted, including averments describing
complainant's business and stating that it is founded
"almost exclusively on the physical and practical proposition
that the mind of the human race is largely responsible for its
ills, and is a perceptible factor in the healing, curing,
benefiting and remedying thereof, and that the human race does
possess the innate power through proper exercise of the faculty of
the brain and mind, to largely control and remedy the ills that
humanity is heir to, and they [complainants] discard and eliminate
from their treatment what is commonly known as Christian Science,
and they are confined to practical scientific treatment emanating
from the source aforesaid."
The foregoing allegations are not conclusions of law, but
statements of fact.
Such an allegation having been made in a bill of complaint, the
business referred to cannot on demurrer be properly pronounced such
a fraud within the statutes of the United States as will justify a
postmaster withholding matter sent to complainants through the mail
in answer to advertisements on an order issued by the Postmaster
General under sections 3929 and 4041 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, and section 4 of an Act approved March 2, 1875, 28
Stat. 963, 964; but, in overruling the demurrer, this Court does
not mean to preclude the defendant from showing on the trial, if he
can, that the business of the complainants, as in fact conducted,
amounts to a violation of such statutes.
The statutes referred to were not intended to cover any case
which the Postmaster General might regard as based on false
opinions, but only cases of actual fraud, in fact in regard to
which opinions formed no basis.
Conceding for the purposes of this case that Congress has full
and absolute
Page 187 U. S. 95
jurisdiction over the mails, still where the Postmaster General,
in a case not covered by the acts of Congress, has assumed to act
under the authority granted by the said statutes and made an order
withholding mail and interfering with carrying on the business
above described, even if such order be made after a hearing, the
matter is subject to be reviewed by the courts, and while the
conduct of the post office is a part of the administrative
department of the government, that fact does not always oust the
courts of jurisdiction to grant relief to a party aggrieved by any
action, by the head, or one of the subordinate officials of that
department, which is unauthorized by the statute under which he
assumes to act.
Where the action of such an officer is unauthorized, he thereby
violates the property rights of the person whose letters are
withheld.
In this case, it not appearing that the complainants have
violated any law, they have the legal right under the general acts
of Congress relating to the mails to have their letters delivered
at the post office as directed, and as those letters contain
checks, drafts, money orders and money itself, all of which became
their property as soon as deposited in the various post offices for
transmission by mail, if the same are not delivered to them, they
will sustain irreparable injury, and there being no adequate remedy
at law, they are entitled to equitable relief and an injunction
preventing the local postmaster withholding their mail under the
order so issued by the Postmaster General.
This is an appeal under section 5 of the Circuit Court of
Appeals Act of 1891, to review directly the decree of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri
dismissing the bill of complainants (appellants) on the merits. The
bill, as amended by leave of the court, averred in substance that
the complainants are, the one a business corporation incorporated
under the laws of and doing business in the State of Missouri, and
the other a resident and citizen of the State of Missouri; that the
defendant was at the time of the filing of the bill and at the
times therein stated, postmaster in charge of the United States
post office in the City of Nevada, State of Missouri, and a
resident and a citizen of that state; that, as such postmaster, he
has the exclusive management of the post office in the City of
Nevada, and of the receipt and distribution of mail received at
that city through the United States mails.
It was further averred that the American School of Magnetic
Healing is located and has its chief office and place of business
at the City of Nevada, and the complainant Kelly was at the time of
the filing of the bill and at all the dates and times
Page 187 U. S. 96
mentioned therein secretary, treasurer, and general manager of
the corporation. In November, 1897, he located at Nevada, and
engaged in the business of healing diseases and ailments of the
human family, and the business of teaching the science of healing
of human ills, and that, in April, 1898, he procured the
incorporation of the business under the laws of the State of
Missouri, under the name of the American School of Magnetic
Healing, and among the stockholders of the company the complainant
Kelly was one; that large buildings were erected for such business,
and large amounts expended in advertising the same. The bill
further averred as follows:
"That in and about their business they carried on and conducted,
not only the treating of people afflicted with ills at their
establishment at said city, but also engaged in the business of
teaching and educating others in the practical science of healing,
and that a large amount of their business consists of treatment by
letter and advice to people throughout the United States and
foreign countries, and in the treatment under said circumstances,
they have built up a large and extensive business in the way of
receipts of such treatment, received through the United States
mail, by letter, registered package, and otherwise, in the nature
of checks, drafts, and United States moneys; that said business has
grown to such an extent that, immediately and for a long time prior
to the grievances hereinafter complained of, the receipts through
the United States mails, in the manner aforesaid, for the treatment
of persons throughout the United States and foreign countries, have
reached and averaged about from one thousand dollars to sixteen
hundred dollars per day."
"And your orators state that said business is a legal and
legitimate business, conducted according to business and legal
methods, and is founded largely, and almost exclusively, on the
physical and practical proposition that the mind of the human race
is largely responsible for its ills, and is a perceptible factor in
the treating, curing, benefiting, and remedying thereof."
"And that the human race does possess the innate power, through
proper exercise of the faculty of the brain and mind, to largely
control and remedy the ills that humanity is heir to,
Page 187 U. S. 97
and complainants discard and eliminate from their treatment what
is commonly known as divine healing and Christian science, and
complainants are confined to practical scientific treatment,
emanating from the source aforesaid."
"That for a long time previous and prior to the grievances
hereinafter mentioned, said corporation has been sending out a
large amount of advertising matter through the United States post
office at said City of Nevada, and that all of its receipts, by
checks, drafts, or money orders aforesaid, have been received by
and delivered to them through the United States post office at the
City of Nevada, of which the respondent herein has exclusive charge
as postmaster aforesaid, and had, during the time aforesaid, been
receiving a large number of letters addressed to said institution
and to its office regarding its treatment and manner of treatment,
and business letters pertaining to, and inquiring into, the manner
of treatment."
"That all such mail, letters, and communications are generally
addressed and directed to the American School of Magnetic Healing
at said city, and that in many cases, said letters are and may be
addressed to said J. H. Kelly, secretary or treasurer or manager,
or to J. H. Kelly, individually, or to Prof. J. H. Kelly, or to J.
H. Kelly or Prof. J. H. Kelly, secretary, treasurer, or manager of
the American School of Magnetic Healing."
"That said Kelly is also receiving, and for a long time past has
been receiving, letters addressed to him individually upon social
matters from friends and acquaintances, and concerning business not
pertaining to or connected with the business hereinafter
stated."
"That, prior to the grievances hereinafter mentioned, said
institute was receiving in the way of letters addressed to it or to
its officers in the manner aforesaid, an average of about the sum
of 3,000 letters per day, and ever since the happening of the
grievances hereinafter mentioned there have been accumulating in
said post office letters belonging to your orator, addressed in the
manner before stated, probably to the total number of 25,000
letters."
"That all of said letters, as your orators are informed and
believe, are duly stamped and ready for delivery to them but
Page 187 U. S. 98
for the action of the postmaster and Postal Department
hereinafter mentioned."
It was then averred that persons who were prompted by assumed
competitive interference with their business complained to the
United States Post Office Department at Washington that
complainants were not engaged in legitimate business, and
therefore, on May 15, 1890, the Post Office Department made the
following order:
"Post Office Department"
"Washington, D.C. May 15, 1900"
"It having been made to appear to the Postmaster General, upon
evidence satisfactory to him, that the American School of Magnetic
Healing, S. A. Weltmer, president, J. H. Kelly, secretary, and J.
A. Kelly at Nevada, Missouri, are engaged in conducting a scheme or
device for obtaining money through the mails by means of false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, in violation
of the act of Congress entitled 'An Act to Amend Certain Sections
of the Revised Statutes Relating to Lotteries, and for Other
Purposes, Approved September 19, 1900.'"
"Now therefore by authority vested in him by said act and by the
act of Congress entitled"
"An Act for the Suppression of Lottery Traffic through
International and Interstate Commerce and the Postal Service,
Subject to the Jurisdiction and Laws of the United States, Approved
March 2, 1895,"
"the Postmaster General hereby forbids you to pay any postal
money order drawn to the order of said concern and persons, and you
are hereby directed to inform the remitter of any such postal money
order that payment thereof has been forbidden, and that the amount
thereof will be returned upon the presentation of a duplicate money
order, applied for and obtained under the regulations of the
Department."
"And you are hereby instructed to return all letters, whether
registered or not, and other mail matter which shall arrive at your
office directed to the said concern and persons, to the postmasters
at the offices at which they were originally mailed, to be
delivered to the senders thereof, with the word 'fraudulent'
plainly written or stamped upon the outside of such letters or
Page 187 U. S. 99
matter. Provided, however, that, where there is nothing to
indicate who are the senders of letters not registered, or other
matter, you are directed in that case to send such letters and
matter to the dead letter office, with the word 'fraudulent'
plainly written or stamped thereon, to be disposed of as other dead
matter, under the laws and regulations applicable thereto."
"Ch. Emory Smith"
"
Postmaster General"
"To the Postmaster, Nevada, Missouri."
Since such order, the defendant has refused to deliver any mail
whatever to the complainants, and there had, when the bill was
filed, as complainants aver on information and belief, accumulated
at the post office at Nevada letters addressed to them containing
checks, drafts, money orders, or money to an aggregate of at least
$10,000 in value; that these checks, drafts, etc., came from
various customers and clients throughout the United States and
foreign countries, who had all been treated and for whom the
complainants had performed services, under contracts with such
parties, and that the sums were so sent in the respective letters
in payment for services performed and rendered to the senders
respectively, all of the senders being willing, and at all times
have been willing, that their letters containing the remittances
should be turned over to the complainants, they making no objection
or complaint thereto.
The complainants further averred that they had been informed by
the defendant that, on Monday, the 28th day of May, then coming, he
intended to stamp on each and every one of the letters addressed to
the complainants, under any of the designations theretofore
mentioned in the bill, the word "fraudulent" across the face of
each letter, without opening it and without knowing what such
letter contained, or the nature or character of the contents, and
that the defendant would then return the letter to the sender
thereof in all cases where, from the outside of the letter or
envelope, he was able to determine from whom the same was received,
and as to all other letters addressed to the complainants, where he
was unable to
Page 187 U. S. 100
determine from the outside from whom the letters were sent, the
defendant would stamp with the word "fraudulent," and send to the
dead letter office of the United States Post Office Department all
such letters, and the defendant stated that he would refuse to
deliver any further mail or letters to the complainants or either
of them, that might be received at his said post office addressed
to them or either of them.
Complainants then averred that, if the respondent were permitted
to do these things, and to return the letters, and refused in the
future to deliver or allow complainants to receive any letters or
mail matter at the post office at Nevada, it would work irreparable
injury, loss, and damage to the complainants, and would result in
eventually embarrassing, crippling, breaking up, and destroying
complainants' legitimate business, and that the complainants had no
other legal or adequate remedy by which they could prevent the
committing of the acts and grievances complained of than by writ of
injunction.
The bill then averred that the action of the defendant was based
upon the order of the Postmaster General, above set forth, who
assumed to act under sections 3929 and 4041 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States, and section 4 of an Act approved March 2,
1895, 28 Stat. 963, 964.
Section 3929 of the Revised Statutes is set forth in the margin.
*
Section 4041 is of the same purport as section 3929,
excepting
Page 187 U. S. 101
that, instead of providing for the retention of registered
letters, it forbids the payment by any postmaster to the person or
company described of any postal money orders drawn to his or its
order, or to his or its favor, or to any agent of any such person
or company, and it provides for the return to the remitters of the
sums of money named in those money orders. Section 4 of the act (c.
191, Laws of 1895, 28 Stat.,
supra) amended section 3929
of the Revised Statutes so as to provide for the retention of all
letters, instead of merely registered letters as in the original
section.
Before the issuing of the written order by the Postmaster
General prohibiting the delivery of mail matter to the
complainants, and pursuant to notice from the Postmaster General,
the complainants went before that official at Washington and had a
hearing before him, and gave their reasons why what is termed a
"fraud order" should not be issued, and that the Postmaster
General, after hearing evidence such as in his judgment was
contemplated by the sections of the statutes above mentioned,
issued the order above referred to, and thereupon the defendant has
refused to permit the delivery of the mail, and assigns as his only
reason for so doing that it would be in violation of the order of
the Postmaster General, founded upon the provisions of the statute
already set forth.
The bill then averred that the statutes have no application
whatever to the conduct or carrying on of complainants' business,
which is a legitimate one, and that no fraud, deceit, deception, or
misrepresentation of any kind has ever been practiced by them, and
that their customers or clients do not claim or assert that the
complainants have in any manner practiced any fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation at any time in procuring the business from them,
or in curing their ills or diseases. Complainants further averred
that the provisions of the statutes above mentioned are in
violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, in that they undertake to
deprive persons of their property and property rights without due
process of law; and, if the statutes were enforced they would place
in the power of the postmaster and the Post Office Department of
the United States the sole
Page 187 U. S. 102
and exclusive right to pass upon the rights of the complainants,
as between themselves and other parties with whom they deal and
transact business through the mails, without a hearing, and that
the provisions of the statute are void for the reason that they
provide for no tribunal, court, or authority to hear or determine
any violation of the statute or claimed violation of the statutes,
but placed the same absolutely in the power and control of the
postmasters and the Post Office Department, and that the statutes
vest an arbitrary discretion in the postmasters and the Post Office
Department or the Postmaster General to determine as he may see
fit, whether right or wrong, the question as to who shall or who
shall not have and receive mail from the United States Post Office
Department, and who shall and who shall not use the United States
mails, and vest in the Department or the Postmaster General if
enforced, the power to interdict and absolutely prohibit the
carrying on of all commercial and business transactions of the
country done through the mailing system, if they see fit to do so,
and make the postmasters and the Post Office Department the sole
judges in their own case.
The complainants then asked for an injunction to restrain the
postmaster from carrying out the order of the Postmaster General,
and that a decree might be entered perpetually enjoining the
defendant as prayed for.
The defendant demurred to the complainants' amended bill (1) on
the ground that the complainants had not stated any such case as
entitled them to any relief; (2) because the complainants had not
stated any ground for equitable relief against the defendant, and
had not shown any reason why an injunction should be granted.
The court sustained the demurrer, and, the complainants'
declining to plead further, it was decreed by the court that the
amended bill of the complainants was insufficient in law and
equity, and it was thereupon dismissed at complainants' cost.
Page 187 U. S. 103
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement of
facts, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The bill of the complainants as amended raises some grave
questions of constitutional law which, in the view the court takes
of the case, it is unnecessary to decide. We may assume, without
deciding or expressing any opinion thereon, the constitutionality
in all particulars of the statutes above referred to, and therefore
the questions arising in the case will be limited (1) to the
inquiry as to whether the action of the Postmaster General under
the circumstances set forth in the complainants' bill is justified
by the statutes, and (2), if not, whether the complainants have any
remedy in the courts.
First. As the case arises on demurrer, all material facts
averred in the bill are, of course, admitted. It is therefore
admitted that the business of the complainants is founded
"almost exclusively on the physical and practical proposition
that the mind of the human race is largely responsible for its
ills, and is a perceptible factor in the treating, curing,
benefiting, and remedying thereof, and that the human race does
possess the innate power, through proper exercise of the faculty of
the brain and mind, to largely control and remedy the ills that
humanity is heir to, and [complainants] discard and eliminate from
their treatment what is commonly known as divine healing and
Christian science, and they are confined to practical scientific
treatment emanating from the source aforesaid."
These allegations are not conclusions of law, but are statements
of fact upon which, as averred, the business of the complainants is
based, and the question is whether the complainants, who are
conducting the business upon the basis stated, thereby obtain money
and property through the mails by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises. Can such a business be
properly pronounced a fraud within the statutes of the United
States?
There can be no doubt that the influence of the mind upon
Page 187 U. S. 104
the physical condition of the body is very powerful, and that a
hopeful mental state goes far in many cases not only to alleviate,
but even to aid very largely in the cure of, an illness from which
the body may suffer. And it is said that nature may itself
frequently, if not generally, heal the ills of the body without
recourse to medicine, and that it cannot be doubted that, in
numerous cases, nature, when left to itself, does succeed in curing
many bodily ills. How far these claims are borne out by actual
experience may be matter of opinion. Just exactly to what extent
the mental condition affects the body no one can accurately and
definitely say. One person may believe it of far greater efficacy
that another, but surely it cannot be said that it is a fraud for
one person to contend that the mind has an effect upon the body and
its physical condition greater that even a vast majority of
intelligent people might be willing to admit or believe. Even
intelligent people may and indeed do differ among themselves as to
the extent of this mental effect. Because the complainants might or
did claim to be able to effect cures by reason of working upon and
affecting the mental powers of the individual and directing them
towards the accomplishment of a cure of the disease under which he
might be suffering, who can say that it is a fraud, or a false
pretense or promise within the meaning of these statutes? How can
anyone lay down the limit and say beyond that there are fraud and
false pretenses? The claim of the ability to cure may be vastly
greater than most men would be ready to admit, and yet those who
might deny the existence or virtue of the remedy would only differ
in opinion from those who assert it. There is no exact standard of
absolute truth by which to prove the assertion false and a fraud.
We mean by that to say that the claim of complainants cannot be the
subject of proof as of an ordinary fact; it cannot be proved as a
fact to be a fraud, or false pretense or promise, nor can it
properly be said that those who assume to heal bodily ills or
infirmities by a resort to this method of cure are guilty of
obtaining money under false pretenses, such as are intended in the
statutes, which evidently do not assume to deal with mere matters
of opinion upon subjects which are not capable of proof as to their
falsity. We may not
Page 187 U. S. 105
believe in the efficacy of the treatment to the extent claimed
by complainants, and we may have no sympathy with them in such
claims, and yet their effectiveness is but matter of opinion in any
court. The bill in this case avers that those who have business
with complainants are satisfied with their method of treatment, and
are entirely willing that the money they sent should be delivered
to the complainants. In other words, they seem to have faith in the
efficacy of the complainants' treatment, and in their ability to
heal as claimed by them. If they fail, the answer might be that all
human means of treatment are also liable to fail, and will
necessarily fail when the appointed time arrives. There is no claim
that the treatment by the complainants will always succeed.
Suppose a person should assert that, by the use of electricity
alone, he could treat diseases as efficaciously and successfully as
the same have heretofore been treated by "regular" physicians.
Would these statutes justify the Postmaster General, upon evidence
satisfactory to him, to adjudge such claim to be without
foundation, and then to pronounce the person so claiming, to be
guilty of procuring, by false or fraudulent pretenses, the moneys
of people sending him money through the mails, and then to prohibit
the delivery of any letters to him? The moderate application of
electricity, it is strongly maintained, has great effect upon the
human system, and just how far it may cure or mitigate diseases no
one can tell with certainty. It is still in an empirical stage, and
enthusiastic believers in it may regard it as entitled to a very
high position in therapeutics, while many others may think it
absolutely without value or potency in the cure of disease. Was
this kind of question intended to be submitted for decision to a
Postmaster General, and was it intended that he might decide the
claim to be a fraud and enjoin the delivery of letters through the
mail addressed to the person practicing such treatment of disease?
As the effectiveness of almost any particular method of treatment
of disease is, to a more or less extent, a fruitful source of
difference of opinion, even though the great majority may be of one
way of thinking, the efficacy of any special method is certainly
not a matter for the decision of the Postmaster General within
these statutes relative to fraud.
Page 187 U. S. 106
Unless the question may be reduced to one of fact, as
distinguished from mere opinion, we think these statutes cannot be
invoked for the purpose of stopping the delivery of mail
matter.
Vaccination is believed by many to be a preventive of smallpox,
while others regard it as unavailing for that purpose. Under these
statutes, could the Postmaster General, upon evidence satisfactory
to him, decide that it was not a preventive, and exclude from the
mails all letters to one who practiced it and advertised it as a
method of prevention, on the ground that the moneys he received
through the mails were procured by false pretenses?
Again, there are many persons who do not believe in the
homeopathic school of medicine, and who think that such doctrine,
if practiced precisely upon the lines set forth by its originator,
is absolutely inefficacious in the treatment of diseases. Are
homeopathic physicians subject to be proceeded against under these
statutes, and liable at the discretion of the Postmaster General,
upon evidence satisfactory to him, to be found guilty of obtaining
money under false pretenses, and their letters stamped as
fraudulent and the money contained therein as payment for their
professional services sent back to the writers of the letters? And,
turning the question around, can physicians of what is called the
"old school" be thus proceeded against? Both of these different
schools of medicine have their followers, and many who believe in
the one will pronounce the other wholly devoid of merit. But there
is no precise standard by which to measure the claims of either,
for people do recover who are treated according to the one or the
other school. And so, it is said, do people recover who are treated
under this mental theory. By reason of it? That cannot be averred
as matter of fact. Many think they do. Others are of the contrary
opinion. Is the Postmaster General to decide the question under
these statutes?
Other instances might be adduced to illustrate the proposition
that these statutes were not intended to cover any case of what the
Postmaster General might think to be false opinions, but only cases
of actual fraud in fact in regard to which opinion formed no
basis.
Page 187 U. S. 107
It may perhaps be urged that the instances above cited by way of
illustration do not fairly represent the case now before us, but
the difference is one of degree only. It is a question of opinion
in all the cases, and although we may think the opinion may be
better founded and based upon a more intelligent and a longer
experience in some cases than in others, yet after all, it is, in
each case, opinion only, and not existing facts with which these
cases deal. There are, as the bill herein shows, many believers in
the truth of the claims set forth by complainants, and it is not
possible to determine as a fact that those claims are so far
unfounded as to justify a determination that those who maintain
them and practice upon that basis obtain their money by false
pretenses within the meaning of these statutes. The opinions
entertained cannot, like allegations of fact, be proved to be
false, and therefore it cannot be proved as matter of fact that
those who maintain them obtain their money by false pretenses or
promises, as that phrase is generally understood, and as, in our
opinion, it is used in these statutes.
That the complainants had a hearing before the Postmaster
General, and that his decision was made after such hearing, cannot
affect the case. The allegation in the bill as to the nature of the
claim of complainants and upon what it is founded is admitted by
the demurrer, and we therefore have undisputed and admitted facts
which show upon what basis the treatment by complainants rests, and
what is the nature and character of their business. From these
admitted facts, it is obvious that complainants, in conducting
their business, so far as this record shows, do not violate the
laws of Congress. The statutes do not as matter of law cover the
facts herein.
Second. Conceding, for the purpose of this case, that Congress
has full and absolute jurisdiction over the mails, and that it may
provide who may and who may not use them, and that its action is
not subject to review by the courts, and also conceding the
conclusive character of the determination by the Postmaster General
of any material and relevant questions of fact arising in the
administration of the statutes of Congress relating to his
department, the question still remains as to the power of the court
to grant relief where the Postmaster General has assumed
Page 187 U. S. 108
and exercised jurisdiction in a case not covered by the
statutes, and where he has ordered the detention of mail matter,
when the statutes have not granted him power so to order. Has
Congress entrusted the administration of these statutes wholly to
the discretion of the Postmaster General, and to such an extent
that his determination is conclusive upon all questions arising
under those statutes, even though the evidence which is adduced
before him is wholly uncontradicted, and shows, beyond any room for
dispute or doubt, that the case, in any view, is beyond the
statutes, and not covered or provided for by them?
That the conduct of the post office is a part of the
administrative department of the government is entirely true, but
that does not necessarily and always oust the courts of
jurisdiction to grant relief to a party aggrieved by any action by
the head, or one of the subordinate officials, of that Department,
which is unauthorized by the statute under which he assumes to act.
The acts of all its officers must be justified by some law, and in
case an official violates the law to the injury of an individual
the courts generally have jurisdiction to grant relief.
The Land Department of the United States is administrative in
its character, and it has been frequently held by this Court that,
in the administration of the public land system of the United
States, questions of fact are for the consideration and judgment of
the Land Department, and its judgment thereon is final.
Burfenning v. Chicago &c. Railway Company,
163 U. S. 321;
Johnson v. Drew, 171 U. S. 93,
171 U. S. 99;
Gardner v. Donestell, 180 U. S. 362.
While the analogy between the above-cited cases and the one now
before us is not perfect, yet, even in them it is held that the
decisions of the officers of the Department upon questions of law
do not conclude the courts, and they have power to grant relief to
an individual aggrieved by an erroneous decision of a legal
question by Department officers.
Thus, in the
Burfenning case,
supra, a tract
of land had been reserved from homestead and preemption, and had
been included within the limits of an incorporated town,
notwithstanding which the Land Department had decided that the land
was open to entry, and had granted a patent under the statute
Page 187 U. S. 109
relating to homesteads. The Court said that
"when, by act of Congress, a tract of land has been reserved
from homestead and preemption, or dedicated to any special purpose,
proceedings in the Land Department in defiance of such reservation
or dedication, although culminating in a patent, transfer no title,
and may be challenged in an action at law. In other words, the
action of the Land Department cannot override the expressed will of
Congress, or convey away public lands in disregard or defiance
thereof."
Here, it is contended that the Postmaster General has, in a case
not covered by the acts of Congress, excluded from the mails
letters addressed to the complainants. His right to exclude
letters, or to refuse to permit their delivery to persons
addressed, must depend upon some law of Congress, and if no such
law exists, then he cannot exclude or refuse to deliver them.
Conceding
arguendo that, when a question of fact arises
which, if found in one way, would show a violation of the statutes
in question in some particular, the decision of the Postmaster
General that such violation had occurred, based upon some evidence
to that effect, would be conclusive and final, and not the subject
of review by any court, yet to that assumption must be added the
statement that if the evidence before the Postmaster General, in
any view of the facts, failed to show a violation of any federal
law, the determination of that official that such violation existed
would not be the determination of a question of fact, but a pure
mistake of law on his part because, the facts being conceded,
whether they amounted to a violation of the statutes would be a
legal question, and not a question of fact. Being a question of law
simply, and the case stated in the bill being outside of the
statutes, the result is that the Postmaster General has ordered the
retention of letters directed to complainants in a case not
authorized by those statutes. To authorize the interference of the
Postmaster General, the facts stated must in some aspect be
sufficient to permit him, under the statutes, to make the
order.
The facts, which are here admitted of record, show that the case
is not one which, by any construction of those facts, is covered or
provided for by the statutes under which the Postmaster
Page 187 U. S. 110
General has assumed to act, and his determination that those
admitted facts do authorize his action is a clear mistake of law as
applied to the admitted facts, and the courts therefore must have
power in a proper proceeding to grant relief. Otherwise, the
individual is left to the absolutely uncontrolled and arbitrary
action of a public and administrative officer, whose action is
unauthorized by any law, and is in violation of the rights of the
individual. Where the action of such an officer is thus
unauthorized, he thereby violates the property rights of the person
whose letters are withheld.
In our view of these statutes, the complainants had the legal
right, under the general acts of Congress relating to the mails, to
have their letters delivered at the post office as directed. They
had violated no law which Congress had passed, and their letters
contained checks, drafts, money orders, and money itself, all of
which were their property as soon as they were deposited in the
various post offices for transmission by mail. They allege, and it
is not difficult to see that the allegation is true, that if such
action be persisted in, these complainants will be entirely cut off
from all mail facilities, and their business will necessarily be
greatly injured, if not wholly destroyed, such business being, so
far as the laws of Congress are concerned, legitimate and lawful.
In other words, irreparable injury will be done to these
complainants by the mistaken act of the Postmaster General in
directing the defendant to retain and refuse to deliver letters
addressed to them. The Postmaster General's order, being the result
of a mistaken view of the law, could not operate as a defense to
this action on the part of the defendant, though it might justify
his obedience thereto until some action of the court. In such a
case as the one before us there is no adequate remedy at law, the
injunction to prohibit the further withholding of the mail from
complainants being the only remedy at all adequate to the full
relief to which the complainants are entitled. Although the
Postmaster General had jurisdiction over the subject matter
(assuming the validity of the acts), and therefore it was his duty,
upon complaint being made, to decide the question of law whether
the case stated was
Page 187 U. S. 111
within the statute, yet such decision, being a legal error, does
not bind the courts.
Without deciding therefore or expressing any opinion upon the
various constitutional objections set out in the bill of
complainants, but simply holding that the admitted facts show no
violation of the statutes cited above, but an erroneous order given
by the Postmaster General to defendant, which the courts have the
power to grant relief against, we are constrained to reverse the
judgment of the circuit court, with instructions to overrule the
defendant's demurrer to the amended bill, with leave to answer, and
to grant a temporary injunction as applied for by complainants, and
to take such further proceedings as may be proper, and not
inconsistent with this opinion. In overruling the demurrer, we do
not mean to preclude the defendant from showing on the trial, if he
can, that the business of complainants, as in fact conducted,
amounts to a violation of the statutes as herein construed.
Judgment reversed.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, believing the
judgment should be affirmed, dissented from the foregoing
opinion.
*
"SEC. 3929. The Postmaster General may, upon evidence
satisfactory to him that any person is engaged in conducting any
fraudulent lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution
of money, or of any real or personal property, by lot, chance, or
drawing of any kind, or in conducting any other scheme or device
for obtaining money through the mails by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, instruct
postmasters at any post offices at which registered letters arrive
directed to any such person, to return all such registered letters
to the postmasters at the offices at which they were originally
malled, with the word 'fraudulent' plainly written or stamped upon
the outside or such letters, and all such letters so returned to
such postmasters shall be by them returned to the writers thereof,
under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe. But
nothing contained in this title shall be so construed as to
authorize any postmaster or other person to open any letter not
addressed to himself."
