UNITED STATES ?. THAYER. ?09U. S. Opinion of tl? Court herein, shows that it was not the intention to prohibit the writing by a private citizen of a letter soliciting a political contribution, which is by him enveloped, stamped, addressed and deposited in the United States mail with an intent that the addressee shall read the same in a public building. Cong. Ree., vol. 1.4, 650, 866. The intent of Con,tess in enacting � i? the law. And before a violation thereof can arise, there must be acts con- travening this intent, wMch are so clearly forbidden by it as to charge notice to the citiZen that they are unlawful. The section under discussion creates a crime theretofore unknown to the law. Laws which create crime ought to be so explicit that all men subject to their penalties may know what acts it is thei? duty to avoid. U?d $tate? v. sharp, Pet. C. C. 118; U?/t?d ?qtat? v. Br?v?r, 139 U.S. 288. See.also Pet. 464; Am?rica? F?r. Co. v. Un?t?d $tat?s, 2 Pet. 358, 367; Un?d ?tat? v. W4n?, 3 Sumner, 209, 211. The words of �, taken in connection with the other sec- tions bf the law and the statutes in pari mat?/a are not so precise and clear as to compel the construction contended for by the Government which 'would lead to an absurd consequence. Commo?w?th v. Ki?nball, 24 Pick. 371. If the physical. presence of the defendant, or his agent or servant in the building at the time the letters containing the solicitations respectively were read, was necessary, then the Government's case falls for the reason that the postal em- ploy& are in law deemed the agents of the addressee, and not of the sender of a letter. Commo?w?a?th v. Wood, 142 Mas?sa - chusetts, 462, and see also R?gina v. Jo?es, 4 Cox C. C. 198. MR. JUSTICE HOLHES delivered the opinion of the court. This is an indictment for soliciting a contribution of money for political purposes from an employ? of the United States in a post office .building of the United States occupied by th?
�
