for membership in the House of Representatives from New Jersey and the general election on November 7, 1972, for membership in the House of Representatives from the following single member districts, which districts were thereafter designated and resulted in a redistricting of the Ninth District, as well as other Congressional districts.

By reason of the redistricting decree the following municipalities will be included in Congressional districts other than area A: Montvale, North Arlington, Wallington, Wood-Ridge, Ridgefield Park, Teaneck, Bogota. And the following municipalities will now be included in the new Ninth District: Bergen County: Harrington Park, Little Ferry, Park Ridge, River Edge, Portion of South Hackensack. Hudson County: Secaucus, Union City, North Bergen.

The additional towns to be included in the Ninth Congressional District will be referred to as Area B.

With respect to the particular mailings and publications brought into issue by the complaint and hearing I will refer to four different groups.

GROUP I: The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1963. On or about June 16, 1972, after the primary election, approximately 280 copies of a Department of Agriculture Publication which is also a House Document entitled "The Yearbook of Agriculture 1963-A Place to Live" was mailed under defendant's franking privilege to specifically-addressed public officials in Areas A and B. Enclosed between the cover and the first page of each Yearbook was a brief "cover" letter explaining the purpose of the book and identifying its sender. With the exception of three or four requests, the mailing of these 280 books was unsolicited. Defendant intends to continue distribution of various editions of this publication under his frank.

The Capitol, Symbol of Freedom. On or about August 23, 1972, defendant sent out unsolicited approximately 500 copies of the 1961 edition or some other edition of a magazine entitled "The Capitol, Symbol of Freedom" a House Document printed by order of Congress. Defendant had made similar mailings of this magazine for the past eight years. The magazines involved in the 1972 mailing were mailed under defendant's franking privilege to Republican County Committee people in Areas A

and B. They were sent only to Republicans because (1) defendant had previously mailed similar publications to Democratic Committee persons the year before, and (2) defendant had copies of the magazine left over in his office.

Defendant's office stamped these magazines "Best Wishes Henry Helstoski, Congressman New Jersey Ninth District" and enclosed with them a cover letter explaining the purpose of the distribution as well as inviting the recipients of the magazine to call upon the defendant any time they had need of other Federal publications made available to him for distribution. Defendant intends to continue mailing these publications in various editions as before.

Consumer Product Information Inder. On or about September 1, 1972, defendant began a mass mailing under his franking privilege of 50,000 copies of a publication entitled "Consumer Product Information" to postal patrons in the Areas A and B. The publication is an index of pamphlets available from the Consumer Product Information Coordinating Center of the General Services Administration (GSA) and contains on its inside back cover order forms for such pamphlets on which postage has been paid by the GSA. The Index itself is printed by the GSA.

With regard to this Index, marked Defendant's Exhibit D-5, sometime in July or August 1972, defendant received an allotment of 50,000 from the Consumer Product Information Coordinating Center of the General Services Administration.

The front of the outside page of the Index as received was in blank and the address side was also in blank except for the words "Consumer Product Information, an index of selected Federal Publications on how to buy, use and take care of consumer products."

On certain copies of the GSA publication (D-5) defendant printed at his own expense and by his own printer a "Dear Friends" letter reproducing his letterhead which letterhead displayed his picture on one side and "Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Official Business, Henry Helstoski m.c., Postal Patron-Local 9th Congressional District, New Jersey" on the address side. As to the rest of the 50,000 GSA Publications, defendant stamped one side of the brochure

with the legend "Compliments of Your Congressman
Henry Helstoski 9th District, New Jersey" and enclosed
the pamphlet in a brown envelope marked "public docu-
ment" and bearing his frank. Defendant has already dis-
tributed his 50,000 allotment of these GSA publications
throughout Areas A and B under his franking privilege.
There is no prospect of defendant distributing any
further of these particular alloted pamphlets as his
entire allotment has already been distributed.

GROUP II: Consumer Product Information Reprints.
In addition to the alloted 50,000 GSA Index's already
distributed, defendant has printed or is in the process
of printing 156,000 additional copies of the Consumer
Product Information Index at his own expense which
copies of the Index are to be mailed unsolicited under
the franking privilege as postal patron mail to Areas
A and B. These additional 156,000 copies of the Index
have not been provided to defendant by any official
allotment, either from the Executive or the Congress,
nor has their printing been in any way officially
authorized.

Newsletters. On or about September 13, 1972 defend-
ant sent unsolicited in a mass mailing as postal patron
mail under his frank 206,000 newsletters entitled "Wash-
ington Report" to Areas A and B. These newsletters
were addressed to "Postal Patron Local, 9th Congres-
sional District, New Jersey" and the envelopes in which
they were sent were stamped "Public Document, Official
Business." Other copies of the newsletter have been sent
to specific addressees outside Areas A and B.

The "Washington Report" was prepared sometime
prior to August 29, 1972 at defendant's own expense. Its
publication was not authorized by order or resolution
of Congress. Various editions of the "Washington Re-
port" have been distributed on a regular and unsolicited
basis to defendant's constituents. Defendant intends to
continue sending to postal patrons in Areas A and B
copies of the "Washington Report" on an unsolicited
basis.

February or March Questionnaire: From February,
1972 through May, 1972, the defendant mailed his annual
legislative questionnaire to each postal patron in Areas
A and B. The questionnaire had not been solicited by

any of the postal patrons. It had been printed at defendant's own expense and was mailed under his frank. Young Voter Questionnaire: In or about August, 1972, defendant mailed under his franking privilege to 15,000 specifically addressed young voters, and/or graduating students in Areas A and B, a Young Voter Opinion Survey. This questionnaire was printed at defendant's own expense and had been unsolicited.

Drug Brochure: Defendant intends to mail unsolicited under his franking privilege 206,000 copies of a brochure on the drug problem which will be prepared by private individuals and printed at defendant's expense; the mailing will be sent to postal patrons in Areas A and B.

GROUP III: Results of February or March Questionnaires. Shortly after June 28, 1972, the defendant mailed, unsolicited to postal patrons in Areas A and B under his franking privilege, 206,000 copies of the results of the questionnaire which result had been printed in the Congressional Record of Wednesday, June 28, 1972. The copy of these results had been printed at defendant's own expense.

Declaration of Independence. Defendant intends to mail unsolicited under his franking privilege, prepared on parchment for framing purposes, 5,000 copies of the Declaration of Independence together with a statement inserted in the Congressional Record by defendant in the early part of September, 1972, both of which have been printed at his own expense. This mailing will be sent to the Republican and Democratic County Committee people, officials, schools and libraries with a letter indicating that more copies will be available upon request.

GROUP IV: Revenue Sharing Report. Defendant has mailed 280 copies of a report on Revenue Sharing printed at his own expense to public officials in Areas A and B and will mail unsolicited six or seven hundred updated versions of these mimeographed reports to public officials in Areas A and B. These reports will be mailed under defendant's frank.

Gun Control Survey. Defendant intends to send an unsolicited Gun Control Survey to 40 police chiefs in Areas A and B under his franking privilege. These surveys will be printed at defendant's own expense.

General Findings. I find that as a result of advisory opinions issued by Congressional Committees and pre

viously by the post office department that defendant had reasonable cause to believe that all his mailings under discussion to date and all his intended mailings would be permitted under the franking privilege. I also find that the distribution of these materials could not be characterized as the type of electioneering aids which were found in Rising v. Brown, 313 F. Supp.

Jurisdiction. This is an action alleging abuse by the defendant of his Congressional franking privilege in violation of defendant's civil and Constitutional rights.

Plaintiff, Alfred Schiaffo, presently a State Senator of New Jersey, and the challenger in the current election scheduled for November 7, 1972 for the seat presently held by the defendant as Representative of the Ninth Congressional District; filed his complaint against the defendant on September 26, 1972.

Essentially, the complaint addressed itself to various. types of franked mailings and activities on the part of the defendant which plaintiff asserts are not permitted and which he, the plaintiff, wishes to be enjoined. It should be noted here that the charges with respect to paragraph nine of the complaint dealing with the defendant's participation in the March of Dimes Solicitation have been withdrawn.

A temporary restraining order sought by plaintiff was denied by the Court by reason of disputed matters of fact and law and within about four days hearings were commenced respecting the issuance of a preliminary injunetion; both parties then agreed that the hearings when concluded would suffice as and constitute the final hearing for permanent relief. The testimony and evidence resulted in the findings of fact hereinbefore noted. Although not asserted in the complaint as a jurisdictional basis, jurisdiction with respect to a claim that the franking privilege has been violated rests with this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1339 which provides:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction

of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to the postal service.

See Christian Beacon v. United States, 322 F. 2d 512 (3rd Cir. 1963); Strauss v. Gilbert, 293 F. Supp. 214 (D.C. N.Y. 1968). Jurisdiction may also be found in 28 U.S.C. 1331 insofar as a question concerning more than