Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/68

 42 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion ?f the Court. 0 U. employ in the discharge .of his duties. By the Civil Service Act of January 1�883, c. 27, �, 22 Stat. 403, 407, "No person. shall, in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by any officer or employ of the United States mentioned in this act, or in any avy-yard, fort, or arsenal, solicit in any manner whatever, or receive any contribution of money or any other thng of any value for any political purpose whatever." By � a penalty is imposed of fine, im- prisonment, or both. The indictment is in eleven counts, and charges the sending of letters to employS, which were in- tended to be received nd read by them in the building and were so received and read by them in fact. It is admitted that the defendant was not in the building. There was a demurrer, which was sustained by the District Court on the ground hat the case was not within the act. 154 Fed. Rep. 508. The only question argued or intended'to be raised is whether the de- fendant's physical presence in the building w'neceesary to create the offense. Of course it is poesible to solicit by letter as well as in per- son. It is equally clear that the person who writes the letter and intentionally puts it in the way of delivery solicits, whether the delivery is accomplished by agents of the writer, by agents of the person addressed, or by independent middlemen, if it tkes place in the intended wy. It appears to us no more open to doubt' that the statut prohibits solicitation by writ-' ten as well as by spoken words. It forbids all persons to solicit "in any manner. whatever." The purpose is wider than that of a notice prohibiting book peddling in a building. It is not, even primarily, to save employ& from interruption or annoy- ance in their business. It is to check a political abuse, which is not different in kind, whether practiced by letter or by word of mouth. The limits of the act, presumably, were due to what was considered the reasonable and possibly the con- stitutional freedom of citizens, whether officeholders or not, when in private life, and it may be conjectured that it upon this ground that an amendment of broader scope was

�