[174] Missouri Drug Co. v. Wyman, 129 Fed. Rep. 623 (1904). See also U. S. ex rel. Reinach v. Cortelyou, 28 App. D. C. 570 (1906), 12 L. R. A. n. s. 166, and note.
[175] Statement of Hon. E. D. Crumpacker before the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, May 25, 1906, in support of H. R. 16548.
[176] Memorandum by the Assistant Attorney General for the Postoffice Department on Postal “Fraud Order” Law (1906).
[177] “It must also be borne in mind that the idea of the fraud order law is not punitive, but is simply protective. It is to prevent the use of the mails to defraud the public. The theory is that by the stopping of the mail privileges in the initiating stages of the fraud, the consummation of the scheme will be prevented. It would be utterly impossible to fulfill this purpose by a trial in court, for the necessary legal evidence could not generally be obtained until the scheme had run its course.” Ibid., p. 6.
[178] Final Report of the Joint Commission on the Business Method of the Postoffice Department and the Postal Service (December 17, 1908), 60th Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Rep. No. 701, chap. 4, secs. 90–99.
[179] American State Papers, vol. xv (Postoffice), p. 28.
[180] 1 Stat. L. 233.
[181] Lalor, Encyclopaedia of Political Science, vol. ii, p. 556.
[182] 1 Stat. L. 251.
[183] Richardson, vol. i, p. 66.