implied power has been again inferred the right to punish those who steal letters from the post office or rob the mail. It may be said with some plausibility that the right to carry the mail and to punish those who rob is not indispensably necessary to the establishment of a post office and a post road. This right is indeed essential to the beneficial exercise of the power; but not indispensably necessary to its existence. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 416.

2. The power to establish post offices and post roads is conferred upon Congress, but the power has been delegated to the postmaster general; and the power to discontinue is incident to the power to establish them. Ware v. U. S., 4 Wall., 617.

3. The Court, conceding that the power to legalize a bridge built across a navigable stream is not derived from the power to establish post roads, finds it to rest on the power to regulate commerce. Wheeling Bridge Case, 18 How., 431.

4. The power vested in Congress "to establish post offices and post roads" has been practically construed, since the foundation of the government, to authorize not merely the designation of the routes over which the mail shall be carried, and the offices where letters and other documents shall be received to be distributed or forwarded, but the carriage of the mails and all measures to secure safe and speedy transit and the prompt delivery of its contents. It "embraces the regulation

of the entire postal system of the country," and empowers Congress to decide what shall or shall not be carried in the mail. But such regulation can not be enforced so as to interfere in any manner with the freedom of the press. The post officials can not open letters or sealed packages subject to letter postage, and intended to be kept free from inspection. Such can only be opened under a warrant, the same as if in the owner's household. They are exempt from search and seizure in the mail except upon legally issued search warrants. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S., 727.

5. The power to establish post offices and post roads is not confined to the instrumentalities of the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but keeps pace with the progress of the country and adapts itself to the new developments of time and circumstances. The Act of Congress (14 Stat. at L., 221, R. S., Sec. 5263) so far as it aids telegraph lines along post roads and excludes State interference, is a valid exercise of the postal power of Congress. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 96 U. S., 1.

6. The power to establish post offices and post roads carries with it all the powers necessary to make the grant effective, including the power to forbid the use of mails to carry matter used in the dissemination of crime or immorality, whether malum in se or malum prohibita; and Congress can exclude lottery matter

from the mails. Ex parte Rapier, 143 U. S., 110; Horner v. U. S., 143 U. S., 207, 570.

"As under the Constitution power over

*

the transportation of the mails is vested in the National government, and Congress by virtue of such grant has assumed actual and direct control, it follows that the National government may prevent any unlawful and forcible interference therewith," and may invoke the jurisdiction of the courts to interfere in such matters by injunction to prevent obstruction of the transportation of the mails, and the courts may punish disobedience of the injunction as a contempt of court. In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564, 581.

The United States have a property in the mails. They are not mere common carriers, but a government, performing a high official duty in holding and guarding its own property, as well as that of its citizens committed to its care; for a very large portion of the letters and packages conveyed in the mails consist of communications to or from the officers of executive departments, or members of the legislature on public service, or in matters of public concern. Searight v. Stokes, 3 How., 151, 169.

THE POWER OF COPYRIGHT AND PATENT.

The Congress shall have power,

* * *

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The power of Congress to legislate on the subject of patents is, by the terms of the Constitution, plenary; and as there can be no restraints on its exercise, there can be no limitation on the right of Congress to modify them at pleasure, so that the rights of property in existing patents are not taken away. McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How., 202, 206. Congress may make special grants (Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 156), and special extensions. Blouchard's Factory v. Warner, 1 Blatch., 258; Evans v. Eaton, Pet. C. C., 322.

In the United States an author has no exclusive property in a book or published work, except under some act of Congress, and obtains no such right but by complying with the acts of Congress securing the right. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., 591.

The power thus granted is domestic in its character, and necessarily confined within the limits of the United States; and the patentee's right of property and exclusive use can not extend beyond the limits to which the law itself is confined. The use of it outside the juris

diction of the United States is not an infringement of his rights, nor is the use of it on a foreign vessel lawfully entering out ports. Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How.,

183.

Congress has the constitutional right to protect photographs and negatives thereof by copyright, if they are a representation of original intellectual conceptions. Burrows-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S.,

53.

The right of the patentee, under letters patent granted by the United States, is exclusive of the government, as well as others, and it can not use the patented invention without license or compensation to the owner. Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Co., 113 U. S., 59; U. S. v. Burns, 12 Wall., 246; Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S., 225; James v. Campbell, 104 U. S., 356; United States v. Palmer, 128 U. S., 262. The fact that the inventor is in the employ of the government at the time of the invention makes no difference. Solomons v. U. S., 137 U. S., 342; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S., 10. An officer of the United States may be sued for such infringement. İd.

Rights secured to inventors must be exercised in subordination to police power of the States; but where a license tax to sell a patented article discriminates against non-residents or inventors not residing in the State, or their agents, it is void as in conflict with the commerce clause. Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S., 344.