File No. 812.00/731.
Referring to the confidential memorandum dated December 16, 1910, from
the Mexican Embassy, inviting attention to an article entitled “Las
Bombas y el Despotismo,” which appeared in the issue of Regeneración for
December 10, 1910, and which was claimed to be anarchistic in character,
the purpose of the memorandum being to ascertain whether there was any
law of the United States against the use of the mails for the
circulation of publications of this kind, the Department of State has
the honor to inclose for the information of the Mexican Embassy a copy
of a letter on the subject from the Attorney General of the United
States, from which it appears that, after a careful examination of the
statutes of the United States bearing upon this question, he has failed
to find any law relating to the use of mails or to the Postal Service
which makes the sending of such publications through the mails an
offense.
Department of
State,
Washington, February 15,
1911.
[Inclosure.]
The Attorney General
to the Secretary of State.
Department of Justice,
Washington, February 3,
1911.
90155–383.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge
receipt of your communication of December 27, 1910, in which you
inclose a translation of a confidential memorandum dated December
16, 1910, from the Mexican ambassador, in which he calls attention
to an article entitled “Las Bombas y el Despotismo” which had
appeared in the issue of Regeneración for December 10, 1910, and
which he claims to be anarchistic in character. The ambassador’s
purpose was to ascertain whether there was any law against the use
of the mails for the circulation of publications of this kind.
I have had a careful examination made of the statutes of the United
States bearing upon this question, and I fail to find any law
relating to the use of the mails or to the Postal Service which
makes the sending through the mails of a publication of this
character an offense.
[Page 407]
I have also had the laws of the State of California examined to
ascertain whether or not, if such article be regarded as libelous,
any action could be maintained in the courts of that State against
the publisher thereof. That State has never adopted the common law,
yet its legislature has defined libel as follows:
A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either by
printing or by signs or pictures, or the like, tending to
blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the
honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or publish the
natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him
to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
Under this definition I see no reason why a prosecution could not be
maintained for the publication of a libelous article, though the
person defamed be a nonresident or the head of a foreign nation.
I, of course, express no views as to whether or not the article in
question is libelous within the meaning of this statute, nor have I
examined the decisions of the courts of California to ascertain what
construction has been placed upon said statute.
Respectfully,
