[381] Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, vol. ii, pp. 9, 10.
[382] See above, p. 105.
[383] Niles’ Register, vol. xlviii, p. 446. The Richmond resolutions were less elaborate, simply requesting the postmaster general “to use all powers vested in him by law” to prevent the dissemination and delivery of the objectionable matter.
[384] Niles’ Register, vol. xlix, p. 7.
[385] Niles’ Register, vol. xlix, p. 9.
[386] 8 Opinions of the Attorneys General, 489 (1857); 5 Stat. L. 80.
[387] Mr. Cushing argued (p. 494) that “it cannot be unlawful to detain that which it is unlawful to deliver.” But the word “unlawful” in the congressional statute is not to be construed according to state regulations. Whether the detention of the mail is sanctioned must be determined by state standards.
[388] 26 Cong. Rec., Part 9, Appendix, Part I, p. 4 ff. (53d Cong., 2d Sess.).
[389] Act of March 2, 1833 (4 Stat. L. 632).
[390] Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1879). See also Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 (1879), and 1 Willoughby on the Constitution, 124.