Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Thayer — Opinion of the Court

It appears to us no more open to doubt that the statute prohibits solicitation by writing as well as by spoken words. It forbids all persons to solicit 'in any manner whatever.' The purpose is wider than that of a notice prohibiting book peddling in a building. It is not, even primarily, to save employees from interruption or annoyance in their business.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Thayer — Opinion of the Court

It is to check a political abuse which is not different in kind whether practised by letter or by word of mouth. The limits of the act, presumably, were due to what was considered the reasonable and possibly the constitutional freedom of citizens, whether officeholders or not, when in private life, and it may be conjectured that it was upon this ground that an amendment of broader scope was rejected.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. United States v. Thayer — Opinion of the Court

Decisions in that class of cases, however, illustrate the indisputable general proposition that a man sometimes may be punished where he has brought consequences to pass, although he was not there in person. They are cited in Re Palliser, supra. Here the defendant was within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to the extent of its constitutional power, and the power is not in dispute.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature