Unrrmn sryrss v. Moons:. 41
two cases, which I have in mind, that it is hardly possible to detect
crimes against the postal laws in any other way. '
Allusion was made, by the counsel for defendant, to certain com-
ments made by a learned brother on the bench, Judge Tamar, of St. -
Louis, in some case in which McAfee appeared before him as a wit-
ness. I do not know what peculiar facts appeared in that case
which gave occasion for the comments said to have been made by my
learned brother as to the conduct of this witness, but must presume
that it was a case which justified what he then said, but there is
nothing in this case, in my estimation,——and I say it to you with
due regard as to the responsibility of the court,-that discredits the
testimony of Mr. McAfee. His testimony stands before you like that
of any other witness. The question for you to determine is whether
you will believe McAfee under oath, taking into consideration the ex-
planation which he has given in reference to his methods of work.
It certainly ought not to discredit any witness before a jury to have —
it brought out that he, as an individual member of society, has vol-
untered to detect crime without appointment or without any official '
position. Nor ought it to discredit a witness, perhaps, any more bes
, cause he is the agent of some organization and is employed to carry
out its objects for the suppression of vice. If it is a part of the pur- ‘
pose of that organization to suppress lotteries, you must say whether
an individual, acting towards the ends of that orginazation, as its
agent, is to be discredited, while using methods allowable under the -
law. If the defendant received the letters, copies or which are in evi-
dence, purporting to come from Holmes, Williams, and Moorey, he
could have answeredthem without violating the law. He must be
presumed to know what the law is in regard to sending matter con-
cerning a lottery through the mails; and sending such matter in re- ·
sponse to a letter from a hctitious person is just as clear a violation
of the law as if sent to a real person described by the name to which ‘
the letter was addressed. The name of the person to whom the in-
hibited matter is addressed is no part of the offense, but the question
is, did the defendant send through the mails a letter or circular con-
perning lotteries; and you have no concern with the good faith of the I
person who incited or induced, by a decoy letter, the sending of such _
matter any more than you have with the good faith of a person who
sends marked money through the mails in order to detect one who is
stealing from the mail. When defendant received the letters in ques-
tion he was under no obligation to so answer them as to violate the
law. ·
It is for you to determine whether the proof on the part of the
government shows that, in response to these registered letters, con-
fessedly written by McAfee and Mooney, addressed to the defendant
at his place of business in this city, certain letters were received
containing these lottery circulars and tickets. There can be no doubt,
on an inspection of these circulars and tickets, that they concern or