In § 213 of the Criminal Code of 1909, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ed.)
§ 336, which forbids the mailing of any letter, package,
postal card, or circular "concerning any lottery" or similar
scheme, the words "concerning any lottery" mean an existing, going
lottery or gambling scheme, and the section is not applicable to
the mailing of a punchboard with a letter suggesting how it might
be used and an order blank for ordering merchandise to be used for
prizes, when neither the sender nor the addressee was engaged in
the operation of a lottery or similar scheme. Pp.
342 U. S.
277-281.
Affirmed.
The District Court dismissed an indictment of respondent for
violation of § 213 of the Criminal Code of 1909, 18 U.S.C.
(1946 ed.) § 336. On direct appeal to this Court under 18
U.S.C. § 3731,
affirmed, p.
342 U. S.
281.
MR. JUSTICE MINTON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee was indicted on eight counts in the District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin for violation of § 213 of
the Criminal Code of 1909, 35 Stat. 1129-1130. The District Court
granted appellee's motion to dismiss the indictment, and the United
States
Page 342 U. S. 278
appealed directly to this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (Supp. IV)
§ 3731. The pertinent provisions of the statute upon which the
indictment was based were as follows:
"No letter, package, postal card, or circular concerning any
lottery . . . or similar scheme offering prizes dependent in whole
or in part upon lot or chance . . . shall be deposited in or
carried by the mails. . . . Whoever shall knowingly deposit . . .
anything to be . . . delivered by mail in violation of . . . this
section . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned. . . ."
The first count of the indictment charged that:
"Perry Halseth, knowingly, willfully and unlawfully did cause to
be delivered by mail to Miss Lucia Brown a circular letter
concerning a lottery or scheme offering a prize dependent upon lot
or chance. . . ."
The other counts were identical except as to the name of the
addressee and the point of delivery.
For the purpose of the motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated
as to particularity that a letter, a circular, an order blank, and
a punchboard were sent to the addressee by mail. The letter subtly
indicated how the addressee might obtain a radio free by selling
the chances on the punchboard and how certain lucky numbers would
reward the purchaser with prizes of a radio and three Rolpoint ball
pens. [
Footnote 1] The
punchboard contained an illustration of merchandise to be won. No
merchandise was sent with the mailing. If the addressee desired to
put the scheme into operation, the merchandise could be obtained by
sending the full amount in cash, or by a downpayment of
Page 342 U. S. 279
$2.00 with the order and the balance payable on delivery, or by
a C.O.D. shipment. The punchboard also informed the addressee that
merchandise could be "purchased" from appellee at any time.
The District Court held that even if these stipulated facts had
been alleged in the indictment and accepted as true for the purpose
of the motion to dismiss, still the indictment did not state an
offense, because the mailing did not concern an existing lottery or
scheme to obtain prizes by lot or chance. The question, therefore,
is whether the mailing of gambling paraphernalia that may be used
to set up a lottery or similar scheme is a violation of the
statute.
The statute on which the indictment is based was passed in 1909,
and, since that time, no reported case has been found construing
it. However, in cases construing analogous lottery statutes, old in
our law, the courts have held that they apply only to existing
lotteries or schemes. [
Footnote
2]
In
France v. United States, 164 U.
S. 676, a lottery had been conducted in Kentucky. After
the drawing was over, persons who were interested in the outcome
and who had taken money to the operators of the lottery for chances
purchased were returning across the state line to Ohio; they had in
their possession the official print of the lucky number that had
been drawn, slips that corresponded with the lucky number, known as
"hit slips," and money which was to be given to winners. They were
arrested and charged with a conspiracy to violate a statute which
prohibited the carrying across state lines of
"any paper, certificate, or instrument purporting to be or
represent a ticket, chance, share, or interest in or dependent upon
the event of a lottery. . . ."
Act March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 963. In
Page 342 U. S. 280
holding that the defendants had not violated the statute, this
Court said:
"The lottery had already been drawn. The papers carried by the
messengers were not then dependent upon the event of any lottery. .
. ."
"There is no contradiction in the testimony, and the government
admits and assumes that the drawing in regard to which these papers
contained any information had already taken place in Kentucky, and
it was the result of that drawing only that was on its way in the
hands of messengers to the agents of the lottery in
Cincinnati."
"The statute does not cover the transaction, and, however
reprehensible the acts of the plaintiffs in error may be thought to
be, we cannot sustain a conviction on that ground. Although the
objection is a narrow one, yet, the statute being highly penal,
rendering its violator liable to fine and imprisonment, we are
compelled to construe it strictly. Full effect is given to the
statute by holding that the language applies only to that kind of a
paper which depends upon a lottery the drawing of which has not yet
taken place, and which paper purports to be a certificate, etc., as
described in the act. If it be urged that the act of these
plaintiffs in error is within the reason of the statute, the answer
must be that it is so far outside of its language that to include
it within the statute would be to legislate, and not to construe
legislation."
164 U.S. at
164 U. S.
682-683.
In the instant case, too, the statute is penal, and must be
strictly construed. We hold that the words "concerning any lottery"
mean an existing, going lottery or gambling scheme. The mailing
does not purport to concern any existing lottery, and neither the
addressee nor the appellee was engaged in the operation of a
lottery or
Page 342 U. S. 281
similar scheme. The lottery or scheme would come into existence
only if the addressee put the paraphernalia into operation. The
mere mailing of information concerning such schemes and how they
may be set up or the mailing of paraphernalia for such schemes does
not violate the statute in question. In fact, the Post Office
Department itself did not regard the statute as covering the
activity complained of here. Beginning in 1915, the Department has
sought to amend the statute, without success. [
Footnote 3]
Congress has had before it many times the question of what
gambling devices and paraphernalia it would exclude from the mails
and interstate commerce, [
Footnote
4] and only recently has it passed an act concerning the
subject. Act of January 2, 1951, P.L. No. 906, 64 Stat. 1134. If
punchboards are to be added to the category of devices to be
excluded, it is for Congress to make the addition.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BURTON dissent.
[
Footnote 1]
Actually, four counts were based on material relating to radios
and pens and four to cameras and a telescope; but, since the nature
of the mailings was the same, we consider only the material
relating to radios and pens.
[
Footnote 2]
France v. United States, 164 U.
S. 676;
Francis v. United States, 188 U.
S. 375;
United States v. Irvine, 156 F.
376.
[
Footnote 3]
Report of the Postmaster General 72 (1915).
[
Footnote 4]
Hearings of April, May and June 1950, House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce on S.3357 and H.R. 6736, 81st
Cong., 2d Sess., 259-260.