[124] U. S. v. Easson, 18 Fed. Rep. 590 (1883).
[125] Rev. Stat. Sec. 3985; the italicised words were added by the Act of March 4, 1909; 35 Stat. L. 1124. See 21 Ops. 394 (1896); 28 Ops. 537 (1910), and 42 Cong. Rec., 973 ff.
[126] 21 Ops. 394.
[127] 29 Ops. 418 (1912).
[128] U. S. v. Erie R. Co., 235 U. S. 513 (1915). It was held that the setting up of a post by a railroad car or steamboat was not within the act of 1827. “Since the passing of the postoffice laws new modes of conveyance have been established and a condition of things arisen not then known or contemplated. And the question is, whether new acts in contravention of the general spirit and policy of the laws, can be brought within any of its prohibitions, and subjected to a specific penalty. However willing the court might be to attain that end, it cannot strain or force the language used beyond its fair and usual meaning.” U. S. v. Kimball, 26 Fed. Cas. 782 (1844).
[129] U. S. v. Sears, 55 Fed. Rep. 268 (1893).
[130] U. S. v. Claypool, 14 Fed. Rep. 127 (1882).
[131] U. S. v. Clark, 25 Fed. Cas. 443 (1877); see also In Re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. Rep. 840 (1894).
[132] In Re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. Rep. 834 (1894).
[133] Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co., 62 Fed. Rep. 803 (1894); but see U. S. v. Stevens, 27 Fed. Cas. 1312 (1877).