. - ' '. 

',, . .-· . : - ~ 

•. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD_:HOUSE. ~ 8695 

CONFIRMATIONS. 

Executive nornination confi~ed by tlte Senate August 13, 1890. 

UNITED STATES CONSUL. 

John S. Bradford, of J>hiladelphia, Pa., to be consul of the United 

States at Antigua, West Indies. 

Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate, August 16, 1890. 

MINISTER RESIDENT AND CONSUL-GENER.AL. 

Alexander Clark, of Iowa, to be tclnister resident and consul-general 

of the United States to Liberia. 

UNITED STATES CONSULS. 

Samuel McNutt: of Iowa, to be consul of the United States at Marac.aibo. 

Adam Lieberknecht, of Illinois, to be consul of the United States at 

Tampico. 

ASS.A.YER. 

William D. Wheeler, of Montana, to be assayer in the United States 

assay office at Helena, in the State of Montana. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

S.A.TURD.A.Y, August 16, 1890. 

The Honse met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. J. H. CUTHBERT, 

D.D. 

The J onrnal of the proceedings of yesterday was read. 

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Journal will be approved. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I was about to ask for a division on the approval 

of the Journal, but I understand that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 

MORRILL] desires to bring up a. proposition in relation to pensions, so 

I shall not ask for a division. 

The Journal was approved. 

E:?o.TROLLED BILL SIGNED. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Enrolled 

Bills, reported that they bad examined and found truly enrolled a bill 

of tbe following title; when the Speaker signea the same: A bill (H. R. 7058) to ratify and confirm an agreement entered into 

by commissioners on the part of the 8tates of New York and Pennsylvania in relation to the boundary line between said States. 

MESS.AGE FRO:ll THE PRESIDENT. 

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, announced that the J?resident had approved and 

signed acts and joint resolutions of the following titles: 

An act (H. R. 3438) to increase the pension of John Taaffe; 

An act (H. R. 7482) increasing the pension of John P. Davis; 

An act (H. R. 8109) to pension George W. Scott, for service int.he 

Florida war; 

An act (H. R. 1452) for the relief of Christopher C. Andrews; 

An act (H. R. 11690) amendatory of the QCt entitled "An act to provide for taking the eleventh and subsequent censuses;" 

An act (H. R. 9523) authorizing the construction of a bridge over the 

Tennessee River at or near Guntersville or Deposit, Ala., and for other 

purposes; 

An act (H. R. 19) to increase the pension of Edward P. Quinn ; 

An act (H. R. 1296) to increase the pension of Mrs. Henrietta. 0. 

Whitaker; 

An act (H. R. 1992) to increase the pension of Cornelia R. Chandler· - · An act (H. R. 1994) to increase the pension of Arnold Meyer; 

An act (H. R. 2005) to increase the pension of Bennett S. Shang ; 

An act (H. R. 4935) to increase the pension of Elmore E. Ewing; 

An act (H. R. 5810) to increase the pension of John B. Davis; 

An act (H. R. 6164) to increase the pension of Thomas H. Isbell ; 

An act ( H. R. 7263) to increase the pension of Henry L. Potter ; 

An act (H. R. 8061) to increase the pension of Jennie D. Hoskins; 

An act (H. R. 8371) to increase the pension of Thomas H. Gohagan; 

An act (H. R. 9424) to increase the pension of Eben E. Smith ; 

An act (H. R. 10445) to increase the pension of Evelyn W. Miles ; 

An act (H. R. 4415) for the relief of John S. Dill; 

An act (H. R. 5099) for the relief of Mrs. Angeline Green; 

An act (H. R. 5108) for the relief of George W. Hutchison; 

An act (H. R. 6305) for the relief of Hayden Sorter; 

An act (H. R. 7675} for the relief of Stephen A. Kennedy; 

An act (H. R. 8262) for the relief of Parker Adams; 

An act (H. R. 8611) for tbe relief of Hugh S. McCormick; 

An act (H. R. 1104) to relieve Peter Moog from the charge of desertion; 

An act (H. R. 1187) granting a pension to George Obergfell; 

An act (H. R. 1598) granting a pension to Sarah A. Tryon; 

An act (H. R. 1778) granting a pension to Gast.on Winters; 

An act (H. R. 2110) granting n pension to Braddock F. Stocking; 

-....... 

An act (H. R. 2128) granting a pension to Mrs. Zelinda Hill; ·· .: An act (H. R. 2430) granting a pensiont to Ruth A. Ball; 

An act ( H. R. 3067) granting a pension to Joseph La Preaze; 

An act (H. R. 4686) granting a pension to Hannah Bedford; 

An act (H. R. 4834) granUng a pension t-0 William 8. Graw; 

An act {H. R. 4930) granting a pension to Joseph Fisher; 

An act (H. R. 5031) granting a pension to George W. White; 

An act (H. R. 5868) granting a pension to Francis Pearce; 

An act (H. R. 6071) granting a pension to 0. Herrick Le Fevre; 

An act (H. R. 6519) granting a pension to William M. Nourse, of 

Knoxville, Tenn; 

An act (H. R. 6755) granting a pension to A. B. Reeves; 

An act (H. R. 7285) granting a. pension to Norman B. Pratt; 

An act (H. H. 7514) granting a pension to Johann.a Sheld; 

An act (H. R. 7658) granting a pension to Isaac Kelley; 

An act (H. R. 7734) granting a pension to Mm. ~L M. Boyle; 

An act (H. R. 7881) granting a pension to Mrs. Martha E. Grant; 

An act (H. R. 8221) granting a pension to William White; 

An act (H. R. 8532) granting a pension to Mary Webster; 

An act (H. R. 8861) granting a pension to Jane N. Terry; 

An act (H. R. 9232) granting a pension to George E. Taylor; 

An act (H. R. 9353) granting a pension to Dwight Parker; 

An act (H. R. 9580) granting a pension to Rebecca Tussey; 

An act (H. R. 9783) granting a pension to Mary Ferguson; 

An act (H. R. 9961) granting a pension to Oran M. Collinsworth: 

An act (H. R. 10074) granting~ pension to Wilhelm Griese; 

An act (H. R.1824} granting a pension to Mrs. Christiana Frederika 

Zeutmeyer, of Fairfield, Minn.; . 

An act (H. R. 3958) granting a pension to Sarah L. Patterson and 

Jane W. Patterson; 

An act (H. R. 10122) granting 9, pension to Mary L. Radford, widow 

of William Radford, late rear-admiral, United States Navy; 

An act (H. R. 6592) to grant a pension to Rachel Lev¥; 

An act (H. R. 10902) to grant a pension to Martin BrachaU; 

An act (H. R. 8822) increasing the pension of Samuel D. Pitcher; 

An act (H. R. 3970) granting an increase of pension to William A. 

Thomas; 

A joint resolution (H. Res. 198) to permit Capt. Geo1·ge W. Davis, 

United States Army, to accept a position in the Nicaragua Canal Construction Company; and 

A joint resolution (H. Res. 211) t.o continue the provisions of existing laws providing temporarily for the expenditures of the Government. 

MESS.AGE FROM THE SEN .A.TE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCOOK, its Secretary, announced 

that the Senate had passed without amendment the bill (H. R. 5107) 

for the relief of David L. Truex. 

The message also announced that the Senate disagreed to the amendments of the House to the joint resolution (S. R. 120) appropriating 

money to the Territory of Oklahoma to relieve destitution therein, 

asked a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 

Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. PLUMB, Mr. HALE, and .Mr. 

COCKRELL conferees on the part of the Senate. 

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill (S. 

3477) for the relief of Niel Nielsson, in which the concurrence of the 

House was requested. 

NATIONAL PARK AT CHICK.A.M.A.UG.A.. 

Mr. SNIDER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a privileged report, 

being the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing 

votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill 

to establish a national park at the battle-field of Chickamauga. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The committee of conference on t.he disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 645-i) to establish a national military park at the battle-field of Chickamauga, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Sen- ate and agree to the same with amendments as follows: Page 3, line 4,strike out" road" and insert·• roads." Page 3, line 4., strike out" Summerville" and insert "Summertown." Page S,line 4,after the word" mountain," insert "and thence .by the route of General .Joseph Hooker's troops to Rossville, Ga." 

n?r!!~ :~~~~:ti~:~~«i~~~~~!::iit:: thence along the south side of the IastPage 5, section 5, line 5, strike out" any" and insert "one." Page 6, line 15. strike out "any" and insert" one." ..... Page 7, line 7, strike out "line" and insert "lines." Page 7, line 10, omit [brackets]. 

Page 9, line 4,after "wads," insert'' maps and surveys."· 

SAM. G. S"h--iDER, 

JOS. WHEELER, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

JOS. R. HA.. WLEY, 

F.1\1. COCKRELL, 

E. C. WALTHALL, 

Managers on the pm·t of the &na~ 

- Mr. SNIDER. :Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the report. 

The conference report was adopted. 

-i. 

--

. .. 

,· 

.. 

- - ~ 

.... ': 

. .. : 

-·· 

• ...... 

·. 

.-

-. . .. ....... -

- . ~ 

::. 

' .. 
. '

;.. 

· .. 

. · 

' . ,'I ; 

·" •I ~· . 

8696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

FRAUDS ON THE POST-OFFICE. Mr. l\IcMILLIN. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from PennMr. BINGHAM, from the Committee on the Post-Office and Post- syl vania [Mr. 0' NEILL fwbether it is not necessary that in the different 

Roads, submitted the following report: libraries mentioned, especially the law department of the Congressional Library, there should be kept more than one copy of different books Whereas it is charged in theoolumm1 of the NeY' York Sun and other respon- for the use of Congress? sible journals that gross fraud" have been pract1oed on the Post.Office Depart- ment. by one .AJexander J. w edderburn in connection with the transmiRsion Mr. 0' NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Oh, yes; in many instances there 

through the mails of a. large number of circulars, in the form of a newspap~r en- are many more copies than one·, in almost all CMes there are several tiUed "The National Farm and Fireside," at one-eighth of the rates established b d copies of each volume. YJi~~e!:itis stated thn.tsaid circulars, printed in Alexandria, Va.,werc mailed Ur. MCMILLIN. Does the joint resolution provide that volumes 

at a post-office near that city at a. place called Grange Camp, where a post-office shall not be taken in this way from these libraries except where there was establisbed at the requ~t of the said Wedderburn, one of his cmployes be- d d 

ing appointed postmaster; and . are more than two copies of any particular volume, or is it provi e Whereas it is stated that an investigation of these facts was made by the that even where there are only two copies one shall be given away in 

proper officers of the Post-Office Department, with the result. of discontinuing this manner? 

said post-onice a.fler the Government had been defrauded out of a large sum of Mr. 0' NEILL, of Pennsvl vania. The idea, of course, is that these 

mon.-y by th~ said Wedderbur~ h:i the manner stated; and . . . Whereas it 1s asserted that cnmmal proceedings were not mst1tuted a~nmst. libraries shall not be stripped of duplicates. The reeolntion was ap- the said Wedderburn, as required by law, the Dl·partment of Agriculture hav- proved, alter careful consideration, by the Joint Committee on the 

ing interposed in behalf of said Wedderburn: Therefore, · · b · h ht Be it resolved, That the Postmaster-General be, and he is, required to transmit· Library, composed of the 8enateand House committees, it emg t ong 

to the House at the ea.rlie8t practicable moment all the facte in the possession very proper that the surplus volumes should be disposed of in this way. of the Post-Offioe Department in the matter, including the reporte of the special Mr. McMILLIN. I am entirely willing that any extra copies not 

agents or im1pectors of the said Department therein, together with any cor- b } ·n d d · respondence had with the Department ~ Agriculture in re;>pect ~o said matter. needed in actual use shall be di~posed of W ere t iey Wl O goo lll 

The committee recommend the adoption of the resolution with an amend- educational institutions of this kind within the District. But it is the 

ment, in line 30,striking out the word "required" and inserting i,n. lieu thereof experience of all of ns that more than one copy of each volume should 

the word "requested." be retained in these libraries; otherwise we are liable to be found withMr. MORGAN. That is the word that was intended to be used, and out copies for the use for which they were originally intended. 

I hope the amendment will be made. l\lr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman desires to amend 

The amendment was ru?reed to. the resolution in that respect, I will not object. 

The resolution as amended was adopted. Mr. SPRINGER. The resolution is already sufficiently guarded to 

PENSIONS. obviate the objection of the i;entleman from Tenn~ee [Mr. McMILMr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am directed by the Committee on Lr;;~·e SPEAKER. The resolnlion in its closing language provides 

Appropriations to submit the report which I send to the desk, and to only forthe disposal of ' ' extra or dnplicate copies that may be spared ask unanimous consent that the House non-concur in the Senate amendments and ask for a conference. without injury to the public service." • The report was read, as follows: Mr. McMILLIN. I will ask the Clerk to read, with the indulgence 

The Committee on .Appropriations, to whom was referred House bill 11380, of the Honse, the preceding provision. making appropriations for additional clerical force and other expenses toca.rry The joint resolution was again read. 

into eft'ectthe tLct entitled" An &et granting pensions to soldiers and sailors Mr. MCMILLIN. Now, I think there ought to be a proviso that in 

who are incapacitated for the performance of manual labor, and providinir for no instance shall the number of copies retamed be reduced below two 

pensions to widows, minor children, and dependent parents from July 20, 1890, of each volume, because in the Congressional Library there are some for the balance of the fiscal year 1891, toirether with the amendments of the 

Senate thereto, havin~ considered the same beg leave to report a.s follows: books of which there are half a dozen copies, and yet we sometimes 

They recommend non-concurrence in the amendments of the Senate num- are unable to obtain any. 

bered from 1 to l7, ioclush'e. Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvanill. I have no objection to such an 

Mr. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be no objection to amendment. 

the request of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CANNON]. .Mr. McMILLIN. I move to amend by addingThe SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CANNON] a.ska Provided, That there shall not be left in either of said libraries less lha.n two 

unani mons consent that the amendment.e ot the Senate be non-concurred copies of any one volume. 

in. Is there objection? Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. That is satisfactory. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I shall object until I can hear a statement of The SPEAKER. This amendment requires unanimous consent, as the reasons why the ji;entleman finds it necessary to ask unanimous the question is now upon the passage of the joint r~olution. 

con~nt. I understand this to be a privileged report. :Mr. MCMILLIN. I suppose there will be no ohjection. 

Mr. C.Ai.~NON. For the reason that the Honse is already operating The SPEAKER. In the absence of objection, the amendment will 

under an order for a yea-and-nay vote. be regarded as adopted. The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I desire to reserve the right I Mr. McMILLIN. I call attention to another thing that may result 

t,o objtd until the amendments have been read. from the operation of this joint resolution. There are four different 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that is proper. The amend- sources from which these books are to be obtained, so that the library 

ments will be read. . I to which the extra volumes are to be distributed may get duplicate The Clerk read the amendments of the Senate. copies of the same book. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The intention is so apparent, I 

from Illinois [Mr. CANNON] that t~e amendments of the Senate be think, from the wording of the resolution, that that can not happen • non-concurred in and a conference with the Senate asked? The Chair The joint resolution as amended was paMed. 

hears no objection, and it is so ordere<l. 

The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. CANNON, Mr. 

BUTTERWORTH, and Mr. FORNEY as conferees on the part of the Honse. 

LAW-BOOKS FOR HOW.ARD UNIVERSITY. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent to take 

from the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the 

Union and put upon its passage ajointresolutionrelative to the library 

of the Howard University. It involves no appropriation. It has been 

passed by the Senate and favorably reported by the House Committeee on the Library. I think its consjderation will not occupy a moment. 

As the new session of the university will commence in about two 

weeks, it is important that the resolution should be acted on now. 

The joint resolution was read, .as follows: 

Joint resolution (S. R. 71 ) directing the Librarian of Congress, the librarian of 

the Senate, the librarian of the House of Representatives, and the librarian of 

the Department of Justice, respectively, to deliver extra or duplicate copies of law-books to the law department of the Howard University. 

Resoived by the Senate ana House of IUpresentatives of the United States of Ame1·- ica in Cong1·ess ass mbl~d, That the Librarian of Conaress the librarian of the 

Senate, the librarian of the House of Representatives, and the librarian of the 

Department of Justice be, a.nd they are hereby, authorized and directed to deliver to the dean of the law department of Howard University, as a gift to the 

said law department of Howard University, for its use and beboof, one copy of such la.w books as a.re now in the above-mentioned libraries which are extra or dupllcale copies thereof that ma.y be spared without injury to the public service. 

There being DO objection, the Committee of the Whole on th~ state 

of the Union was discharged from the further consideration of the joint 

resolution; which was ordered to a third reading, and read the third 

time. 

BUSINESS OF COMMITTEE ON LIBRARY. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I wish to say, with the permission 

of the House, that t0he Library Committee of the Honse has by its 

action determined that it will not ask for the passage during this ses- sion of any bills reported from tha.t committee which involve appropriations, but will come in and ask the House to fix an early day in 

the month of December next for the con~ideration of various very patriotic propositions that come by report of that committee to the House. 

Mr. McCLAM:M:Y. I am very sorry to hear the gentleman has come 

to that conclusion, because there are bills before that committee, involving an appropriation, that are very patriotic. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. It ha.s been the habit of the committee to so inform people for very many weeks past. 

NATHANIEL l\11KAY ET AL. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I demand the regular order. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is the question on the passage 

of the bill (S. 846) for the relief of Nathaniel McKay and the execu- tors of Donald McKay; and the Clerk will call the roll. 

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 83, nays 65, not voting 179; as follows : 

Allen, l\lich. 

Anderson, Kans. 

.Atkinson, ,V. Va. 

Baker, 

Bartine, 

Bayne, 

Belknap, 

Bingham, 

Boothman, 

Brower, 

Burrows, 

Burton, 

YEAS-f!3. 

Butterworth, 

Caldwell, 

Cannon, 

Carter, 

Conger, 

Connell, 

Covert, 

Culbertson, Pa., Cummings, 

Cutcheon, 

Dingley, 

Dolliver, 

I• 
·:. ' 

' ':... . ,. 

·,. .· , . . .. ' 

·. I , _· .I '\ :: ., . · .. 

1890. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. 8697. 

Dunnell, 

Farquhar, 

Funston, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

Greenhalge, 

Grosvenor, 

Hall, 

Hansbrough, 

Harmer, 

Haugen, 

Hayes, 

Henderson, Ill. 

Henderson, Iowa. 

Hermann, 

Bankhead, 

Barwlg, 

Bli!!s, 

Blount., 

Breckinridge, Ky. Brickner, 

Brookshire, 

Browu,J.B. 

Buckalew, 

Bynum, 

Cheadle, 

Chipman, 

Comstock, 

Cooper, Ind. 

Crisp, 

Culberson, Tex. 

Dibble, 

Hill, 

Kennedy, 

Ketcham, 

Kinsey, 

Lacey, 

Laidlaw, 

Lansing, 

Lee, 

McCord, 

Moffitt, 

Moore, N.H. 

Morey, 

Morrow, 

1\1udd, 

O'Donnell, 

O'Neill, Pa. 

Osborne, 

Owens, Ohio 

Payne, 

Pugsley, 

Quackenbush, 

Quinn, 

Ray, 

Reed, Iowa. 

Rowell, 

Russell, 

Sawyer, 

Scull, 

Sherman, 

Simonds, 

NAYS-65. 

Edmunds, 

Fithian, 

Flick, 

Forman, 

Forney, 

Goodnight, 

Haynes, 

Henderson, N. C. 

Hitt, 

Holman, 

Hopkins, 

Kerr, Iowa. 

La Follette, 

Lane, 

Lanham, 

Lester, Ga. 

Lewis, 

McClammy, 

McClellan, 

McMillin, 

McRae, 

Montgomery, 

Morgan, 

Mutn..hler, 

Norton, 

Paynter, 

Penington, 

Pick.lei·, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Sayers, 

Shively, 

Skinner, 

NOT VOTING-179. 

.Abbott, Cooper, Ohio Lehlbach, 

.A.dams, Cothran, Lester, Va. 

Alderson, Cowles, Lind, 

.A.Hen, Miss. Craig, Lodge, Anderson, Miss. Crain, Magner, Andrew, Dalzell, Maii;ih, 

Arnold, Dargan, Mansur, 

Atkinson. Pa.. Darlington, Martin, Ind. 

Banks, · Davidson, Martin, Tex. 

Barnes, De Haven, Mason, 

Beckwith, De La.no, McAdoo, Belden, Dickerson, McCarthy, Bergen, Dockery, McComas, 

Biggs, Dorsey, McCormick, 

Blanchard, Dunphy, McCreary, Bland, Elliott, McDuffie, 

Boatner, Ellis, McKenna, 

Boutelle, Enloe, McKinley, Bowden, Evans, !.files, 

Breckinridge, Ark. Ewart, Milliken, 

Brewer, Featherston, Mills, Brosius, Finley, Moore. Tex. 

Browne, T. M. Fit.ch, :M:orrill, 

Browne, Va.. Flood, :Morse, Brunner, Flower, Niedringhaus, Buchanan, N. J. Fowler, Nute, 

Buchanan, Va. Frank, Oat~s, 

Bullock, Geissenhainer, O'Ferrall, 

Bunn, Gibson, O'Neall, Ind. 

Campbell, Gifford, O'Neil, ltfa.ss. 

Candler, Ga. Grimes, Outhwaite, 

Candler, Mass. Grout, Owen, Ind. 

Carlton, Bare, Parrett, Caruth, Hatch, Payson, Caswell, Heard Peel, 

Catchings, Hempbill, Perkins, 

Cheatham, Herbert, Perry, Clancy, Hooker, Peters, Clark, Wis. Bonk, Phelan, 

Clarke, Ala. Kelley, Pierce. 

Clements, Kerr, Pa. Post, 

Clunie, Kilgore, Price, 

Cobb, Knapp, Ra.Rninndeasil, Co~swell, Lawler, ~ 

Coleman, Laws, Reilly, 

Smith, Ill. 

Smyser, 

Stone, Ky. Sweney, 

Taylor, 'renn. 

Tavlor,E.B. 

Thomas, 

Turner, Kans. 

Vandever, 

Walker, 

Wiley, 

Williams, Ohio 

Wilson, Wash. 

Yardley. 

Snider, 

·Springer, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stone, Mo. 

Struble, 

Tars.ney, 

Tillman, 

Turner, Ga. 

'Vheeler, Ala. 

\Vhitthorne, 

Wilkinson, 

Willcox, 

Williams, Ill. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Reyburn, 

Richardson, 

Rife, 

Rockwell, 

Rusk, 

Sanford, 

Scranton, 

Seney, 

Smith, W. Va. 

Spinola, 

Spooner, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Stockdale, 

Stump, 

Taylor, Ill. 

Taylor, J. D. 

Thowpson, 

'l'ownsend, Colo. 

Townsend, Pa. 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, N. Y. 

Van Schaick, 

Vaux, 

Venable, 

Waddill, 

Wade, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Wallace, N. Y. 

Washington, 

Wat@on, 

Wheeler, Mich. 

\Vbiting, 

Wick.ham, 

Wike, 

Wilson, Ky. Wilson, Mo. 

Wright, 

Yoder. 

The following pairs were announced until further notice: 

Mr. BROWNE, of Virginia, with Mr. LESTER, of Virginia. 

Mr. DALZELL with Mr. CLANCY. 

Mr. SMITH, of West Virginia, with Mr. ALDERSON. 

Mr. WRIGHT with Mr. GEISSENHAINER. 

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR with Mr. OUTHWAITE. 

Mr. MORSE with Mr. ELLIS. 

Mr. FINLEY with Mr. CANDLER, of Georgia. 

Mr. SMYSER with l\Ir. SENEY. 

Mr. PERKINS with Mr. KILGORE. 

:M:r. STEWART, of Vermont, with Mr. BLANCH.A.RD. 

Mr. NUTE with Mr. BARNES. 

Mr. LIND with Mr. PIERCE. 

Mr. STEPHENSON with Mr. DAVIDSON. 

Mr. SANFORD with Mr. RUSK. 

Mr. DE LANO with Mr. DUNPHY. 

Mr. FltANK with l\Ir. DICKERSOY. 

Mr. BELDEN with Mr. FLOWER. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee, with Mr. O'NEALL, of Indian~. 

Mr. CLARK, of Wisconsin, with Mr. Wnrn. 

Mr. MCKENNA with Mr. CLUNIE. 

Mr. BANKS with Mr. BUCHAN.AN, of Virginia. 

M:r. WHEELER, of Michigan, with Mr. BLAND. 

Mr. WILSON, of Kentucky, with Mr. PERRY. 

Mr. SPOONER with Mr. DARGAN. 

Mr. w .ADDILL with Mr. HEMPHILL. 

Mr. McKINLEY with Mr. MILLS. 

Mr. DORSEY with Mr. FOWLER. 

: 

Mr. CANDLER, of Massachusetts, with Mr. STEWAR:r, of Georgia. 

Mr. THOMPSON with Mr. OATES. 

Mr. WALL.A.CE, of New York, with Mr. McCARTHY. 

Mr. BAKER with Mr. ELLIOTT. 

Mr. RIFE with Mr. ANDERSON. of Mississippi. 

Mr. THOMAS M. BROWNE with Mr. w .ASHINGTON. 

Mr. RANDALL with Mr. SPINOLA. 

Mr. COGSWELL with Mr. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts. 

Mr. BOUTELLE with Mr. HERBERT. 

Mr. COOPER, of Ohio, with Mr. MAISH. 

Mr. GROUT with Mr. FITCH. 

Mr. HOUK with Mr. RICHARDSON. 

Mr. PETERS with Mr. MANSUR. 

Mr. SCRANTON with Mr. STAHLNECKER. 

Mr. LODGE with Mr. ANDREW. 

Mr. ARNOLD with Mr. MAGNER. 

Mr. LEHLBACH with Mr. CoTHRAN. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Colorado, with Mr. E!rr.OE. 

Mr. RAINES with Mr. BUNN. 

Mr. V .AN ScH.AICK with Mr. P .ARRETT. 

Mr. EWART with Mr. STUMP. 

Mr. TuCKER with Mr. GREENHALGE. 

Mr. W.ATSON with Mr. REILLY. 

Mr. GIFFORD with Mr. HARE. 

Mr. BERGEN with Mr. VENABLE. 

Mr. ADAMS with Mr. MARTIN, of Texas. 

Mr. BROSIUS with Mr. CAMPBELL. 

Mr. HEH.A VEN with Mr. BIGGS, on all questions except bankruptcy 

and national-bank lep;islation. 

Mr. POST with Mr. McCREARY, on this vote. 

Mr. BREWER with Mr. VAUX, on this vote. 

Mr. ATKINSON, of Pennsylvania, with Mr. WILSON, of Missouri, on 

this vote. 

Mr. McCor.f.A.s with Mr. -GIBSON, for August 16. 

Mr. CASWELL with Mr. BRUNNER, on this vote. 

Mr. SrncKBRIDGE with Mr. McADOO, for this day. 

Mr. WICKHAM with Mr. COWLES, for this day. 

Mr. McCORMICK with Mr. K.ll:RR, of Pennsylvania, for this day. 

Mr. McDUFFIE with Mr. CLARKE, of Alabama, for this day. 

Mr • .BUCHANAN, or New Jersey, with ~lr. COBB, for this day. 

Mr. BTIVERS with Mr. COVERT, until .Friday next. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania, with Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana, except on the Atkinson railroad bill. 

Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia, with Mr. GROSVENOR, until August 

17. 

Mr. MASON with Mr. HATCH, until August 19. 

Mr. REYBURN with Mr. TRACEY, until Tuesday next. 

Mr. MILLIKEN with Mr. ABBOTI, for ten dayM, fromAu~nst 12, Mr. 

MILLIKEN reserving the r ght to vote to make a quorum and the right 

to vote on original-package bill. 

Mr. BAKER. I am paired on political questions only. 

Mr. HARE. I desire to withdraw my vote, being paired. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. I have been paired with the gentleman from 

West Virginia [Mr. WILSON], but that pair having expired I voted. 

Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia. I was paired with the gentleman 

from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR], but as he has returned and voted I desire also to have my vote recorded.. 

The SPEAKER. The clerk will first announce the members present 

and not voting, after which the gentleman can have his name recorded 

if be desires. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. ALLEN of Mississippi, Mr. BELDEN, Mr. BRUNNER, Mi·. BYNUM, :lfr. CANDLEK of Georgia., Mr. CARUTH, Mr. CASWELL. Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAIN, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. GOODNIGHT, Mr. HARE, Mr. HA.YES, Mr. HERMANN, ~Ir. LAWLEB, Mr. 

McDUFFIE, Mr. Mc.KENNA, Mr. MORROW, Mr. OWEN of Indiana., Mr. PERKINS, 

Mr. POST, Mr. PRICE, Mr. TOWNS1tND of Pennsylvania, Mr. 'VILSON of Missouri, Mr. WILSON of West Virginia., and the SPEAKER. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee. I am announced as being paired with 

the gentleman from Indiana.. That pair relates to political qu~tions 

only. Not regarding this as a political question I have voted. 

The following members announced as present and not voting recorded their names as above, under the rulP.: 

Mr. BYNUM, Mr. GoODNIGHT, Mr. HA YES, Mr. HERMANN, l\!r. MOREY, and Mr. 

WIT.SON of West Virginia.. 

Mr. McMILLIN. My colleague, Mr. RICHARDSON, is detained from 

the House on account of sickness. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The vote, I believe, has not been recapitulated. 

The SPEAKER. It bas not. Does the gentleman desire it? 

Mr. SPRINGER. Oh, yes; of coarse. 

'.{'he Clerk recapitulated the names of those voting. 

The SPEAKER. On this question the yeas recorded are 83, the nays 

65, and, with the members announced as present and not voting, a quo- rum being present, the bill is passed. 

•, I 

. ... 

·.· 

•' 

, 

.. 

. , ; 

' · 

'.:-

r 

' 

:r· 
. . 

·. 

. '· ,. 

"· 

.· 

. · 

... 

8698 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE.- AUGUST 16, 

Mr. THOMAS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 

passed, and also move to lay that motion on the table. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask for a division on the latter motion. 

Mr. THOMAS. Then I will withdraw it. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a privileged report. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the House resolation of August 5, relating to the consideration of House bill 11569 (the lottery bill), have 

considered the same, and beg leave to report the !olJowing substitute: 

ResoltJed, That after the passage of this resolution the House proceed to con- sider House bill 11569, to a.mend certain sections of the Revised Sta.tut.es re- lating to lotteries and for other purposes, and at 4 o'clock and 40 minutes the 

previous question on the bill and pending amendments shall be considered as ordered. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. 

Mr. SPRINGER, Ur. BLOUNT, and Mr. BREOKINRIDGE, of Kentucky, 

addressed tba Chair . Mr. BLOUNT. Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. CANNON] 

yield t-0 me for a moment? 

Mr. CANNON. Yes. 

J'iir. BLOUNT. l\Iy object is simply to make a statement in relation to the order. While I am anxious for the consideration of this 

bill, I do not like the terms of the order which fixes the time for the 

previous question. I think the House is much more competent to do 

that for itself than is the Committee on Rules. For that reason I do 

not wish to assent to that portion of the order. With this statement 

I do not care to add anything further. 

The HPEAKER. The question is on the adoption of the resolution . Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. .M:r. Speaker, I rise for the 

purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry, as to whether the rule is 

not divisible, so that we can take a separate vote upon so much of it as orders the previous question at 4 o'clock and 40 minutes. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. You can move to amend it. 

The SPEAKER. A division of it would not leave a substantive 

proposition. 

Mr. l\IcMILLIN. We might take a separate vote upon so much of 

the resolution as orders the present consideration of the bill. 

The SPEAKER. But that would not leave the latter part of the 

resolution as a substantive proposition. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Then I would like to move to amend so much of it as to strike out the order for the previous question. 

Ur. CANNON. I can not accept the gentleman's amendment. We 

want to pass this bill. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I would like to move that 

amendment. 

Mr. CANNON. Is there any opposition to the bill? 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not know whether there 

is or not. I myself am in favor of the bill, but I am opposed to such an order, no matter what is the end to be obtained. I shal1, as far as possible to do it, consistently oppose this mode of calling the previous 

question before the consideration of a bill has been entered upon, before there is any opportunity to amend it, before there is any knowledge on the part of the House as to what technical defects there may 

be in a bill. Therefore, while I am in favor of the bill-I possibly 

would like to see some amendments as to foreign newspapers and probably some other matters-I am opposed to ordering, at the beginning 

of the consideration, before the Honse has entered upon it, at a fixed 

hour, the previous question. 

Of conrse if the gentleman does not yield for the purpose of allowing me to offer this amendment, I can not offer it; but I can at least put on record my opposition to this sort of special rules, which I think are vicious, which can not but result in improper and ill-considered legislation, which tie the bands of the ~ouse and prevent proper amendments. A.s this bill is wholly non-partisan and non-political and as it 

is the purpose of the Honse to get a proper bill, as it goes to the very essence of the proper protection of the mail matter of the country, it seems tomethatin view of the general desire to do the proper thing there 

is no reason why the House may not be trusted to take this matter up 

and close it at the proper time; for this.-ord"er simply means that there 

shall be no amendment to the bill. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman from Illinois (lli. CANNON] 

yield to me for one moment before he closes? 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly. 

l\Ir. ROGERS. Some gentleman on the opposite side-I do not now 

remember who-brought me this bill to look at. It is perhaps re- membered that in a former Congress I offered some opposition to legislation of a kindred character. I have glanced over this bill I do 

not know that it can command my vote; bnt there is a field fo~ legislation noon this subject, abont the constitutionality of which there is 

no sort of doubt, and that is with reference to foreign lotteries. This 

. bill makes no provision for them at all, and yet in this country more than one foreign lottery is operating. It does seem to me that we ought n~t to consider a question of this kind, of so far-reaching importance as this is, without the right to offer an amendment covering 

that field, so that if you finally pass this bill, which is of doubtful constitutionality, you shall at least carry with it a provision that shall 

crush out, as we ought to have done long since, everythingin the shape 

of foreign lotteries. 

There is no que8tion about the constitutionality of that, I take it. 

Yet this order cuts off that right absolutely, and this bill does not deal 

with that subject. There is a German lottery now operating in New 

York. I believe there is one in Havana operating all over this coun- try. These things ought to be crushed out, and if we have the constitutional power we ought to crush out the one that is now corrupting 

the State of Louisiana. 

.Mr. CALDWELL. The most powerful one of all is at Hamburg. 

1tir. ROGERS. I take it there is no opposition on this floor to going 

just as far as you may constitationally go in the passage of a bill dealing with this subject, and it does seem to me that we certainly ought 

to have the right to cover the whole field. 

Mr. CANNON. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word in reply. 

This proposed rule does not cut off amend men ts. All amendments in 

order·under this rule are in orderupon this matter, namely, an amendment, an amendment to an amendment, a substitute, and an amendment to that. 

It is perfectly competent for the Honse from time to time, while this 

order operates, to consider the amendments and dispose of them and 

make other amendments afterwards. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. But does not the gentleman 

from Illinois know that, while that is technically so, practically in the 

experience of the Honse it is perfectly illusory under an order of this 

kind to have an opportunity to make amendments, and that the bill 

has passed as it came from the committee or as the gentleman in charge 

of the bill bas pleased? 

Mr. CANNON. In reply, thegentlemanfromlllinoisdoesnotknow 

that. On the contrary, if there is a bona fide intention to perfect this 

bill up to the time that the previous question operates, it can be perfected; 

amendments can be proposed and disposed of before the previous ques· 

tion operates. Again, it is perfectly obvious that at this time of the 

session, if this legislation is to pass, it must pass under substantially a similiar order to this. On this side we want it passed, and we want 

it passed before the sun goes down. If the gentleman bas an amendment to offer touching foreign lotteries, it will be in order, and the 

gentleman who sits beside me [Mr. CALDWELL], in charge of the bill, 

intimates that if gentlemen desire to offer an amendment of that kind 

they shall have an opportunity to do so. Mr. BLOUNT. If the gentleman will allow me, I would make this 

suggestion: I have no doubt that the time will be equitably divided 

upon either side of the House, and I understand that any gentleman 

getting the floor io discuss this bill in opposition to it as it st~nds 

may offer his amendment and such amendments as have been indicated with reference to foreign lotteries. 

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; and the amendment may then be disposed 

of. 

Mr. BLOUNT. The previous question may then be demanded? 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly; on that amendment. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the report. 

l\Ir. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I believe no motion has been made for the previous question on the adoption of the 

report. 

Mr. CANNON. Well, I will move it, if the gentleman is going to 

antagonize it. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I will do so, because I think we should vote down such an order. 

The question was taken on ordering the previous question; and the 

Speaker announced that the ayes seemed to have it. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Division. 

The Honse divided; and there were-ayes 74, noes 34. 

So the previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the adoption of the reso- lution. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Is there not twenty minutes allowed for debate 

now? 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman ask that question? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I am making a parliamentarytinquiry. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman ask that question? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I do; certainly. 

The SPEAKER. It would not be allowed. The question is on the 

adoption of the resolution. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Does the Chair state that debate would not be 

allowed? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair only reiterated what the gentleman 

must know. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I did not hear the Chair. I ask as a parliamentary inquiry 'Yhether twenty minutes' debate would be allowed on the 

adoption of the report. 

The SPEAKER. It would not . Mr. SPRINGER. It would not? 

The SPEAKER. It would not. 

Mr. SPRINGER. For what reason? The previous question-has 

been ordered. 

. ~ - .. 

·. 

.,, . 
:- .. .· •• ! ... _ ........ ...... .,- .. 

1890. OONGRESSIONAL REOORD_:_HOUSE. 8699 

The SPEAKER. Because debate has already taken place. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Does the Speaker call these inquiries in regard 

to the previous question, etc. 1 debate? 

The SPEAKER. It seems to the Chair that it isin the nature ofd~ 

bate. The question is on the adoption of the report. 

The question was put, and the report was ad.opted. 

LOTTERIES. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the bill. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That section 3894 of the Revised Statutes be, and the same I.s hereby, amended to read as follows: "SE'c. 3894. No letter, postal card, or circular concerning any lottery, so-called gift concert·, or other similar enterprise offering prizes dependent upon lot or chance, or concerning schemes devised for the purpose of obtaining money or property under fall:le pret.enses, and no list of the drawings at any lottery.or similar scheme, and no lottery ticket or part thereof, and no check, draft, bill, money, postal note, or mouey-order for the purchase of any ticket, tickets, or pa.rt thereof, or ofe.ny share of any chance in any such lottery or gift enterprise, shall be carried in the mail or delivered at or through any post-office or branch thereof, or by any letter-carrier; eor shall any newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or publication of e.ny kind containing any advertisement of any lottery or gift 

enterprise of any kind offering prizes dependent upon lot or chance, or con- taining any list of prizes awarded at the drawings of any such lottery or i;:ift en· terprise, whether sa.id list is of any pa.rt or of all the drawing, be carried in the mail or delivered by any postmaster or letter-carrier. Any person who shall knowingly deposit or ca.use to be deposited, or who shall knowingly send or ca.use to be sent, anything to be conveyed or delivered by mail in violation of this section, or who shall knowingly cause to be delivered by mail anything herein forbidden to be carried by mail, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or by im- prisonment for not more than one year,or by both such fine and imprisonment for each offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section may be proceeded aga.inst by information or indictment., and tried and punished either in the district at which the unlawful publication was mailed or to which it is carried by mail for delivery n.ccordim~ to the direction thereon, or at which it is caused to be delivered by mail to the person to whom it is addressed." SEc. 2. That section 3929 of the Revised Statutes be, and the same is hereby, a.mended to read as follows: "8EC. 3929. The Postmaster-General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery. gift enter- prise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personal prop- erty by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any person or company is conducting any other scheme or device for obtaining money or property of any kind through the mails by me1tns of false or fraudulent pretenses, representa--

tion.s, or promises, instruct postmasters at &ny post-office at which registered letters arrive directed to any such person or company, or to the agent or repre- sentative of any Ruch person or company, whether such agent or representative is acting as an individual or as a firm, bank:, corporation, or a.~sociation of any kind, to return e.llsuch registered letters to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed, with the word •Fraudulent' plainly writ.ten or stamped upon the outside thereof; and all such letters so returned to such post- masters shall be by them returned to the writers thereof, under such regulation<\ as the Postmaster-General may prescribe. But nothing contained in this section shall be Po construed as to authorize n.ny postmaster or other person to open any letter not addressed to himself. The public advertisement by such person or company so conducting such lottery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device, that remittances lor the same may be made by registered letters to any other person, firm, bank, corporation, or association named therein shall be held to be !l.Il acknowledgment of the existence of said agency by all the parties named therein." 

SEC. 3. That section 4041 of the Revised Statutes be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows: "SEC. 4041. 'l'he Postmaster-General may, upon evidence satisfact-0ry to him that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery,gift;enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personal property by 

lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any person or company is conduct- ing any other scheme for obtaining money or property of a.ny kind through the mails by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, forbid the payment by any postmaster to said person or company of any postal 

money-orders drawn to his or its order, or in his or its favor, or to the agent of any such person or company, whether such agent is acting as an individual or asa firm, bank, corporation, or association of any kind, and may provide by 

regulation for the return to the remitters of the sums named in such money- orders. But this shall not authorize any person to open any letter not addressed to himself. The public advertisement by such person or company so conduct- ing any such lottery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device, that remitt-.ances for the same may he n;iade by means of postal money-order& to any other perioon, 

firm, bank, corporation, or association named therein shall be held to be ac- knowledgment of the existence of said agency by all the parties named therein." 

Mr. HOPKINS. I would like to make some arrangement with the 

gentlemen opposed to this bill about the disposition of time. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I do not know of anybody on this side opposed to 

it. [Cries of "Vote!"] 

The SPEAKER. Are any amendments to be offere-d? 

Mr. HOPKINS. I have an amendment I wish to offer. 

Mr. WILKINSQ;N. I have an amendment to offer, but I will do so at a later period. · 

Mr. BLOUNT. I wish to call the attention of the gentleman from 

Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE], who was out of his seat when the gentleman from IllinoiR [Mr. HOPKINS] desired to know whether there was a desire to discuss this bill on the Democratic side of the House, 

in order to ascert.ain whether he wishes to take the floor in opposition 

to the bill or to discuss the bilJ. 

l\:lr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not. 

Mr. CRAIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer the amendment which I send to 

the Clerk's desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 4 strike out all after the word "himself," in line 25, down to the end of Lhe section. 

Mr. BLOUNT. If my friend will allow me, I would suggest that 

this amendment be now considered as pending, and perhaps if we are to have a discussion we had better have some order about it. 

.- . ' 

Mr. CRAIN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer some other amendments. 

What is the desire of the gentleman from Georgia? 

BLOUNT. So far as I am concerned, it might be well for the 

eman to offer all the amendments he has. I have not charge of e bill. 

Mr. CALDWELL. The gentleman can offer his amendments now. 

Mr. CRAIN. There is another one I desire to offer, but I have not 

yet prepared it. 

The SPEAKER. The question will first be taken on the first amendment. 

Mr. CRAIN. Mr. Speaker, the object of that amendment is to strike 

out the following words in section 2: 

The :public advertisement by such person or company so conducting such lot- tery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device, that remittances for the same may be mllde by registered letters to "any other person, firm, bank, corporation, or as- sociation named therein shal I be held to be an acknowledgment of the existence of said agency by all the parties named tnerein. 

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that whatever may be the object intended to be accomplished by this bill, whether the Louisiana lottery or any other scheme of a similar character, wherever conducted, be 

immoral or not, these schemes ought to be suppressed, if they are deserving of suppression, in a legal and constitutional manner; and I call 

upon the gentleman who has charge of this bill to tell me of any case" 

that has ever come within his knowledge in which the mere announcement of the fact by one individual that another is his agent is sufficient 

to constitute that other his agent without knowledge or acquiescence 

on his part. 

What authority has any man or any corporation to constitute me his agent or representative unless I acquiesce in that agency? Th.is 

bill simply says that, if the Louisiana Lottery Company or any kindred 

scheme or enterprise publishes in any newspaper of this country the 

announcement that I am its agent, that publication ipso facto constitutes me its agent and makes me re.sponsible in that capacity. What 

istheeffectofthat? It deprives meofthe right to receive mymoneyorders through the post-office; it deprives me of the right to receive 

my registered packages and letters; because this bill provides that, 

wherever an advertisement is published by any of these enterprises 

stating that I am its agent or representative in a particular locality, 

that advertisement, no matter whether I have knowledge of it or not, 

constitutes me the agent and representative of the enterprise and I am thereafter debarred from the right which, as an American. citizen, I 

to-day enjoy, to receive through the post-office my money-orders and 

registered letters, no matter for what purpose or by whom they may 

be sent. 

I say that the bill is radically detective in this particular. Either 

that portion of this section should be stricken out-and the same re· marks are applicable to the next section, which contains exactly the same language-or there should be an amendment inserting a proviso 

that the agent or representative, advertised as such by the lottery com- pany or other enterprise, shall be shown to have knowledge, either by 

actual notice served upon him or by evidence that he has seen the publication and has not protested against it. Otherwise this law might 

interfere with the business of any man, or any bank, or any firm, or any 

corporation. An enemy of mine, being himself engaged in an unlawful scheme for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses, 

may publish to the world a statement that I am his agent, and as soon as be does that I am deprived, under this bill, of the right of receiving 

through the mails any money-orders or registered letters. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, just a word in reply to the gentle- man from Texas and his propost!d amendment. It is the experience of 

the Post-Office Department with this lottery company in New Orleans 

that has given rise to this part of the section and caused it to be em- bodied in this bill. As is well known to members of the Honse and 

to the country generally, the Department has been endea.voring for 

many years, so far as was in its power, to prevent the transmis.sion 

through the mails of letters, papers, and documents to this enormous gambling concern which is located in the State of Louisiana. One 

means that was adoped by previous legislation for the purpose of suppressing the business was to restrain the Post-Office Department from 

transmitting any letters, checks, or remittances of any kind t;o the lottery company itself. That worked for a time, but they evaded it by 

designs.ting a national bank in the city of New Orleans to whom all 

their letters, papers, and money-orders were to be addressed. That 

bank was made, in fact, the agent of the lottery company, and by that means the company transacted its busine3s with as much openness as it 

did when the letters were transmitted directly to it through the mails. 

Mr. CRAIN. The gentleman is making a statement of facts which 

nobody controvert.s; but I want to know whether it is proper in his 

judgment to authorize any lottery company or other corporation to 

make me Us af.!:ent without notice to me. 

Mr. HOPKINS. If the gentleman will wait I will come to that 

proposition. Now, I say the experience of the Post-Office Department 

is as I have stated. This national bank in New Orleans neither affirmed nor denied, un~il there was litigation on the subject, that it was the agent of the lottery company, but it received the letters and 

papers and transmitted them to the company. The gentleman from 

Texas says that the provisions of the bill which he criticises deprives 

-.. 

·. 

-· 

. __ ... ' 

·I ,(' 

'. 

-. 

,, 

,_' ""· 

' - .... 

'\ 

•• '<:. 

' - ~ 

- ' .. 

.. -

........ 
.· 

. I 

-- . , 

,. 

,., 

... · 

' . 

8700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-H_OUSE. AUGUST 16, 

the citizen of his inherent rights, because it provides that any person 

or corporation to whom these letters are directed to be addressed is 

made the agent of the lottery company by the very fact of receiving 

them. My answer to that is that this lottery company is financially 

responsible. This section of the propo~ed legiela~on is not penal. It 

does not panish any one by fine or imprisonment for receiving these 

letters. It simply authorizes the Postmaster-Gfilleral to stop the delivery of this mail matter to that agent until the question is determined. 

That is all there is to it. Suppose, if yon pleMe, that this corporation which is engaged in this gambling enterprise does designate a 

national bank or an individual as its agent to receive these letters and 

money-ordens when in fact and in truth that bank or that individaa.l 

is not its agent, and suppose that, in pul.'8uance of the provii:dons of 

this bill, some of these letters and money-orders are stopped, if any 

damage accrues to the corporation or individual to whom the letters 

are addressed this lottery concern is financially responsible. But the 

history and experience of mankind teach us that they will not dare to 

designate any national bank or any individual or any corporation to 

receive their letters, money-orders, or other mail matter unless there is 

an agreement or understanding between that bank, corporation, or individual and the lottery company; and we believe that the provi.iion as it stande in the bill is the only efiective means of checking the me of 

the mails for theee illegal and criminal purposes. 

Mr. BLOUNT. SnpJ>03e the amendment of the gentleman from 

TexM (Mr. CRAIN] were adopted by the Home, would that alt-er at all 

the power given to the Postmaster-General in relation to this matter? 

This section of the bill provides that "the Postmaster-General may, 

upon evidence satisfactory to him that any pereon or company is eng~ed in condacting any lottery " etc., do such and such things. It 

seems to me that that gives him ample power, and that he may adopt 

either the rule provided for in the bill or eome other rule, as be may 

prefer. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I disagree with the gentleman upon that. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Well, the gentleman has had better opportunity of 

examining the question carefully than I have had, but that is how it 

strikes me. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I think tbe striking out of this provision would 

very greatly impair the efficiency of the bill. 

Mr. BLOUNT. If the Postmaster-General is not to be controlled in 

this matter by any rules of evidence, but may act, as provided in this 

section, upon "evidence satisfactory to him," why does not that include, if he sees fit to use it, the power to act upon the very kind of evidence that the amendment of the gentleman from Texas proposes to 

strike from the bill? Yon leave the whole power to the PostmasterGeneral. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, if be can do that indirectly, why not leave 

the express authority in the bill itself? 

Mr. BLOUNT. I do not say that be can do it indirectly; it occurs 

to me that he may do it directly under the language ot this section. 

From the very nature of his office the Postmaster-General has quasijudicial functions which he exercises here and all along the line of the 

administration of his office. However, I am content myself with the 

provision as it stands in the bill. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I think that even wit.h the const.rnction fur which 

the gentleman from Georgia contends there ie no po~ible harm in leaving thie provision in the bill. 

If the Postmaster-General has this authority without the express 

declaration here, certainly no injury will be done by re8tating it so that 

no mistake can be made on this point~ 

The emergency spoken of by the gentleman from Texas will never 

arise, never. It is not within the bounds of probability, neither is it 

within the bounds of poMibility, that this corporation, which everybody 

acknowledJrM to be financially responsible, will designate any individual in the State of Louisiana or any other State to receive its moneyorders or any of its papers unless the company has express authority 

to so advertise that person. Gentlemen will observe that it is only 

when any individual or corpbration is publicly advertised by this lottery company as its agent that the Postmaster-General is authorized 

to withhold the mail matter of such person or corporation. · 

Mr. BLOUNT. Is not my friend going too far in the statement he 

has just made? May not the Postmaster-General ascertain the fact in 

other ways? 

Mr. HOPKINS. He may according to the gentleman's construction 

of the general provisions of the bill. But this provision sought to be 

eliminated by the amendment of the gentleman from Texas says that 

when by public advet'tisement any person is designatt'd as the agent 

of the lottery company the Postmaster-General may take cognizance of 

that fact, maytreat the person as the authorized agent of the company 

and subject him to the same ref!:ulations and orders of the Department 

to which the company it.c;elfis subjected. 

M:r. KERR, of Iowa. Would the gentleman have any objection to 

striking out the word "acknowledgment,,, in the twenty-ninth and 

thirtieth lines of section 2 and inserting '' primajncie evidence?'' 

Mr. HOPKINS. The objection to that is that it would be liable to 

lead to litigation. The experience of the Department with this com~ 

•, 

pany has been that whenever a bill to restrain this business has been 

passed by Congress the company has immediately taken the Department into the courts, causing delay and expense. There is no dan£er 

from the incorporation in the bill of the lan,guage now under consideration, beeause, as I have already stated, this company will not dare to 

designate a person as agent to receive its money unless that person 

agrees to the agency before the public announcement of th@ fact. Practically no danger can arise, and by a provision of this sort the Postmaster-General will be ~reatly aided in suppressing the passage of this 

lottery matter throu.llh the mails. 

Mr. CONGER. Can the gent.leman conceive any possible inducement for the lottery company to advertise anybody as its agent if he 

is not its agent? 

Mr. HOPKINS. None whatever. Thecompauywill not designate a person to receive money transmitted to it unle.'ia that person is one in 

whom the company has confidence and with whom it has a prior agreement, so that it may rely on receiving the money. 

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. CRAIN] says that an enemy of the 

company might be designated as ita agent; but it must be remembered 

that the case under consideration is where money is transmitted to this 

agent to be retransmitted to the company; and this is the reason why 

the company would not designate as its agent a man who would not 

be financially responsible t-0 it. 

Mr. Speaker, I call for a vote on the amendment. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

1rlr. BUCKALEW. I move to strike out the words "an acknowledgment'' in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth lines of section 2 and insert • 'prima facie evidence.'' 

Mr. Speaker, it is best wherever possible to use words of a known 

legal meaning for the guidance of public offi.cens. Now, if a person is 

advertised as an agent in the connection which this bill supposes, it is 

manifestly an impropriety to say that that shall be held an acknowledgment by him of the existence of such agency. The word "acknowled~ment '' so used may be corietraed in various ways; it may be 

held to be a conclusive acknowledgment by him. Why is it not sufficient if we say that it may be regarded by the postmaster or the Postmaster· General as prima jaci11 evidence of the facts? 

It the person can controvert or overturn this prima facie evidence, 

there ought to be prompt relief; he ou11:bt to be permitted to receive 

his mail. We ought to give to these officers, the Postmaster-General 

and his deputies, a rule which they can follow, that such anadvertieement shall be prima jacie evidence of the fact of agency, and upon such 

evidence mail matter may be withheld. Bnt the party ought to be 

permitted to come forward and show to the postmas~r or the Postmaster-General that the agency does not exist. For instance, by opening a lett.er on the spot it might be shown in a moment that it does 

not relate to lottery business. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

allow a suggestion? 

Mr. BUCKALEW. Certainly. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I understood the gentleman from Illinois 

[Mr. HOPKINS] to say that one of the troubles which would arise if 

such an amendment as that suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania should be adopted would be that it vroald involve litigation in 

each case, and that this litigation might run on almoet as long as the 

case of Jarndyce vs. Jarnd_yce\ and in the mean time the lottery com- pany would go on with ite business. Would that be so? 

Mr. BUCKALEW. No such consequence need follow. The withholding of the letters and the transmission of the case to the PostmasterGeneral are provided for in the bill-- · 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. But would the withholding be authorized 

if we should use the language suggested by my friend from Pennsylvania? 

Mr. BUCKALEW. Certainly. The bill says so. l\Ir. BUTTERWORTH. I do not understand t.hat such would be 

the case if this clause be stricken out. The first question is as to 

whether the party is the agent of the lottery company. Now it is proposed by the gentleman that the advertisement of a pel"8on as agent 

shall be only prim.a facie evidence of his agency pending the determination of the question whether he is or is not such agent. Does my 

friend say that during the pendency of that question the mail matter 

of the party could be or should be withheld? 

Mr. BUCKALEW. My amendment would not arrest the action of 

the postmaster at the point of delivery. That is already provided for 

in the bill. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I understood my friend from Illinois [Mr. 

HOPKINS] to argue that the amendment would paralyze the action of 

the Post-Office Department. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. He is entirely mistaken. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I think it would. I belieTe that the PostmasterGeneral, pending an investigation of that kind, would refrain from stopping the maU matter of the supposed agent. With due respect to the 

judgment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (.M:r. BUCKALEW] I hold 

that his amendment would be a fruitful source of litigation. The law-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8701 

yers of tbe country might be benefited by it, but I can not see how the 

public, w)lo are in tere'3ted in suporessing the lottery business, are going 

t.o receive any advantage from such a proposition. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Illinois to yield 

to me for a moment. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Certainly. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I think an examination of the situation of the law 

atthis time, and the condition of the postal service with regard tothe 

discretion now vested in the Postmaster-General in regard to such 

matters, will satisfy my friend from Illinois and others that this provision is not at all needed, nor the amendment of my distinguished 

friend from Pennsylvania. 

I ask the attention of the Honse, and especially of the gentleman 

in charge of the bill, to an extract from the report itself. What is 

the present condition of the law in regard to the matter? 

Sections 3929, Revised Statutes, relating to registered letters, and 4041, Revised 

Statutes, relating to money-orders, authorize the PosLma.'1ter-General, "upon ·evidence satiefa.ctory to him that any person is enga.ged in conducting any fraudulent lottery, gift enter prise,'' etc., to instruct postmasters at any po:;t-office at which regi!!tered letters or money-orders may arrive addressed to and intended for per11onsso engaged as aforesaid to withhold tho delivery of the one and the payment of the other. IL will be observed in these cases that the law 

does not require the Postmaeter-Genera.l to know anything of the contents of 

the registered' lettel'!I, nor to be ad vised as to the purpose to be served by the 

postal money-orders, but gives him the power, whenever be is satisfied that the one is addressed and the other made payable to a. person engaged in conducting schemes to obtain money by false means or false and fraudulent pretenses, to enforce its provisions as etated above. It is nut necessary, therefore, that he ehould break a seal, or rouse a seal to be broken, or to do any other act of a questionable or prohibited kind; buteimply permitS him to cut off the deli very of said registered letters because they are presumed to contain money, and the payment of money-orders because they a . a preeumed to have been sent for the purcLase of lottery tickets. 

Acting under the authority contained in these two sections, a former Post- master-General issued an order, which operated particularly upon the postruns· ter at New Orleans, prohihiting the delivery of registered letters and the pay- ment of money-orders to lottery companies, and especially to M.A. Dauphin in 

bis several ca.pa.cities as a manager of the Louisiana 1:5tate Lottery. That order 

has been strictly enforced since the date of its issuance, and is now enforced in 

all the post-offices of the country, but it does not accomplish the objects that 

Congress evidently had in view. 

NowThe Louisiana State Lottery Company met the order of the Postmaster-General by announcing that thereafter regi8tered letters and m<.1lley-orders could be sent to the New Orleans National Bank, and thereupon the Postmaster-General 

issued a subsequent order prohibiting the delivery of registered letters aud the 

payment of' money-orders to said bank. The bank sought an injunction or the court to restrain the poetmaster a.t New Orleans fromeuforcing this order, which wa.s granted, and from that time until the present euchdeliveries and payments have been m&de to that bank 'lll"itbout let or hind.era.nee, for the reason that it wn.s believed that the authority of tbe Postma~ter-General. under the existing 

provisions of law, was not sufficient to justify him in declarini: that a delivery to the bank was a delivery to the lottery company and such a delivery as wa.s prohibited by law. 

The substitute bill proposes to cure these defects by including within its pro- visions any agent or representative of the lottery company acting n.s an indiTI.dual, or as a firm, bank, corporation, or association of any kind, and declaring that the published advertisement by a lottery concern that remittances for 

it may be made to" any other person, firm, bank, corporation, or association • * "' shall be held to be an acknowledgment of the t:x:istence or said agency by all the parties named therein." · 

Now, you have cured it all before you reach the provision which my 

friend from Texas proposes to strike out. Yon have accomplished all 

yon wanted to accomplish before reaching that provision; hence there 

is no necessity for it. The proviso to which the gentleman from Texas 

refors, if stricken out, does not retrench the power of the PostmasterGeneral at all, and should not. This report bas already indicated what 

you want to reach. Yon can not reach the agent now; but you have 

done that by this bill. You have,been able to reach the agent through 

the instrumentality of the legislation proposed here, and cat him off 

from receiving registered matter for this lottery company. How do 

you do it? Why, "npon evidence satisfadory to him," that is to 

say, the Postmaster-General. Yon have accomplished the whole purpose yon had in view. But having done that here follows a provision: 

The publicadverti.sementby such person or company.so conducting such lo~ 

tery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device that remiUa.nces for the same may be 

made by registered letters to any other peraon, firm, bank, corporation, or as- sociation named therein shall be held to be a.n acknowledgment of the exis~ 

ence of said agency by aU the parties named therc:in. 

Now, that provision is utterly needless, and it rather indicates, if it 

indicates anything at all, that the Postmaster-General's discretion lit 

restricted by it, the large discretion which he bas now, if it is part of 

the bill. I think his sound judgment oaght to be left to him unimpaired, without restriction. He should have the full power granted 

in the preceding part of the section, and omit altogether this '(lrovision 

to which I have just referred. 

Then, in addition to that, my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. BTICKALEW] comes forward with a suggestion that it shonld be considered 

only as prima faeie evidence of the existence of such agency. I think 

it ought to be left with the Postmaster-General to determine for himself whether the presumption as to the existence of said agency may 

be rebutted by evide~e or whether it is satisfactory·or not, and then to exercise the authori~given to him by the law as his discretion may 

dictate. 

The Postmaster-General and the heads of the vadous other Departments of this Government have power just as much as any other branch 

of the public service. The.re are necessarily accorded to them certain discretionary rights and powe1s in their control of their various branahes 

of the public service. They have quasi-judicial functions under the 

Constitution, and they are being continually exercised by virtue of the 

Constitution itself. 

There is nothing relating to the mails where the Postma.st-er-General 

is not exercising his discretion in reference to classification of mail 

matter and all other matters connected with the transmission of the 

mails; he is continually dorng it, and he is not contronrted in his functions or obstructed in their exercise by the courts. I do not think, 

therelore, that he ought to be in this instance. He ought to be left 

free to say, on information bad, whether or not in his judgment the 

evidence is sufficient to authorize him to cut off these notes, or money 

orders, as provided by this bill, from any particn~ar agent. 

Mr. CRAIN. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him in the 

line of his own suggestions? On page 3, in line 13, section 2 of this 

bill, thegentlemanfrom Georgia. is fortified by the language employed, 

n:i.mely: 

lllay instruct postmasters at any post~office at which registered letters arrive 

directed to any such person or company, or to the agent, etc. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I am very much obliged to my friend. That is what 

I was r~arding as already in the bill. I have not read it myself care- fully. Bat the discretion is already in the bill, giving the Postma.sterGeneral the power, upon information satisfactory to himself-an exec- utive officer at the head of this great Department of the Governmentto exercise certain authority conferred upon him by the law. He is 

charged with theenforcementofthe law in that regard, and the proviso 

my friend is criticising is in restraint of this discretionary power of the 

Postmaster-General. 

I do not believe in restraining him. I believe in giving him the 

ample power declared in the beginning of the mea.sure. What we need 

in regard to this lottery is legislation which shall exclude from the 

mails the circulars and literature of this company for i~ criminal purposes, and the languae:e of the bill is not too broad in this section or anywhere else which confers on the Postmaster-General the discretion 

under which be shall exclude this or that agent from sending or receiving money-orders. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I wish to submit to my honored friend that 

if the clause to which be objects does restrict the power of the Postmaster-General it is a very proper restriction. 

But it is not so. It is not uncommon in a statute to provide what 

shall be taken as being conclusive of a fact to be established. 

Mr. BLOUNT. That is upon the court. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I nnderstand that, but it occasionally happens that we provide that when a certain fact is shown, guilt shall be 

presumed; but in this case what is the object of this clause? First, it 

provides that the Postmaster-General may direct, in a certain contingency, that certain letters addrMSed to or for the use of a lottery carried on by a company or person shall be returned to the writer stamped 

"fraudulent." This clause of which complaint is made provides what? 

Simply that where any such person, any such lottery company, or any 

such individual, conducting a lottery, advertise.s A, B, or C to be bis 

agent for receiving remittances to, for, or on aecount of such lottery, 

such notice shall be taken as evidence of such agency and be conclusive 

upon the parties thereto. Now, in the first place, does it work any hard· 

ship on any body? My honored friend from Texas [Mr. CRAIN] says it is 

not proper that I should be held to be estopped from asserting that I 

am not the a.gent of the Louisiana Lottery Company if they assert that 

I am. That is very true--

Mr. HAYES. Will the gentleman pardon an interruption? 

Ur. BUTTERWORTH. Certainly; but let me conclude this sen- tence. In the first place, the presumption is utterly violent that the 

Louisiana Lottery Company or any other lottery company will advertise A, B, or C to be its agent to receive remittances on its account unless the agency exists. Now, what cla.ss of matter, I ask my friend, 

will be so sent? That which is transmitted to me, not as an individnalthis does not cover that case-but that which is transmitted to me as the agent of the lottery company. Then, if it is transmitted to me as their agent and I am not their agent, I have no concern about the mat;.. 

ter; and if I am not the agent and it is transmitted to me as such agent, 

it may well be turned over to the authorities or returned to the writer, 

for I certainly ought to have no concern about it. 

Mr. CRAIN. There is nothing in this bill that discriminates between 

you as an individual and yon as an a~ent. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. My friend is in error. Mr. CRAIN. How is the Postmaster-General or any postmaster to 

know whether a registered package or letter which is addressed to you 

as an individual comes to yon as an fodividnal or an agent? 

Ur. BUTTERWORTH. My friend is in error about that. Thelaw 

itself provides that this matter shall be transmitted to me as such 

agent, and unless upon the outside of the letter itself that it disclosed, 

the Postmaster-General has no power to do anything with these letters. 

Mr. HAYES. Then the provision would be utterly futile, as no company or concern would be foolish enough to advertise the fact that 

git,ve the Postmaster-General such power, upon the outside of the lettei: 

itself. 

·, . ·- ,J 

_. 

-: 

./ 

I' 

.. , 

,. 
.•\ 

/ 

, . . 

- '· . 

• .. 8702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. The section itself providesBut nothing contained in this section shall be construed!\.'! authorizing a post- master or other person to open any letter not addressed to himself. 

Mr. CRAIN. Yes, that is it. 

l'i1r. BUTTERWORTH. Very well. 

Mr. CRAIN. I knew you were mistaken about that. 

Ur. BUTTERWORTH. No, I am not mistaken. Let me see. The 

provision of the law is that he shall be the agent and that it shall be 

transmitted to him as such. 

Mr. CRAIN. J3nt it does not say that the envelope must be addressed to him as agent; and the postmaster can no~ possibly tell 

whether the remittance is int-ended for you as agent or you as an individual. 

Mr. HOPKINS. There is no new principle involved in that. 

Ur. BUTTERWORTH. That does not involve any new principle, as suggested by my friend from Illinois. Bnt if you strike out this 

clause very serious questions will al'ise, in my judgment. 

Mr. HAYES. I would like to ask the gentleman if, to carry out the 

true theory which he desires, it would not be better to cha!!ge the word 

''acknowledgment'' and make it" create a presumption;'' for it might 

be very well held that au acknowledgment was conclusive. If I acknowledge a thing as against myself that is conclusive. The word 

ought to be "presumption." 

Mr. KERR. of Iowa. I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio 

if the company should advertise that a certain individ nal was its agent, 

when in fact he was not its agent, wonld that be true? 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Of course it would not be true. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. O.t:course it would not. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It requires me to disavow it, of course. Now, the apprehension is that these companies will immediately begin 

to advertise eminent christian gentlemen as their agents, a thing so 

utterly improbable that we need not feel apprehen."ive of any danger 

upon that point; while, on the other hand, if we strike out this clause, 

instead of preventing a mischief that is not proximate or remote, we may accomplish the defeat of some important provision of this bill. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Should we by Jaw declare a thing to be an "acknowledgment" which, as a matter of fact, we know is not an acknowledgment? 

Ur. HOPKINS. That is avoided in this way, because the bill itself 

says there must be a public advertisement that such person or such 

bank is the agent of the lottery company. If such bank is not the 

agent, it is within the province of that bank or that person to so state 

publicly and inform the Postmaster-General. This clause here in the 

bill is to aid the Postmaster-General in stopping the transmission of 

this matter through the mails, and if the Postmaster-General is satis· 

fied that the company is working n. fraud upon some person, then, un- der the ge.neral scope of the bill, it is a matter that be can regulate. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman from Illinois yield to me for a 

minute? 

~Ir. HOPKINS. It is not likely that this company will everadvertise any person as an agent without authority. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman allow me a moment? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. By the terms of this bill you make the publication 

ofa man as agent an acknowled~ment thatthat ma.n is its agent. That 

is the law. Now, you say the way to overtnrn the law is a disavowal, 

aud yon propose to say that the Postmaster-General shall. on the mere disavowal of this man, overturn what you yourselves have made when 

yon say that if be were published as an agent that operates as an ac- knowledgment that be is an agent. Why, does not my friend see at once that all that a person has to do is to contradict the acknowledg· 

ment, when that bill S.'lys that the publication of a man's name as the 

agent shall be affirmative evid~nce that he is nn agent, and that it is 

primafacie evidencesufficientfor a postmaster to act upon? But when 

you make the mere disavowal of it operate as an overthrowal of that, 

why then you have overturned the law you have made. 

Mr. HOPKINS. The gentleman then wants simply to establish a new rule of evidence for the guidance of the Postmaster-General. 

1"1r. ROGERS. I did not catch that. 

Mr. HOPKINS. l say it is to establish a. rule of evidence to aid 

the Postmaster-General. Now, ii he should get prima facic evidence--

Mr. ROGERS. That is the very trouble. You make a thing true 

which may be false. You say that this company will never do this. 

I do not think it is probable they will do it myself; but suppose, as a 

matter of retaliation a!rainst those persons who have fought the Louisiana lottery in Louisiana, they should select the names of a thousand 

prominent business men in Louisiana. and publish them. Then you 

have got a thousand men advertised as agents. 

Mr. CRAIN. Published in the New York or New Orleans papers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Published anywhere. The mail of these gentlemen 

in Louisiana by the law that yon would make in this bill can be 

stopped. From the fact that they are published as the agents of the 

lottery, by the terms of the bill, you can go to the Postmaster-General 

and lay that information before him, and it is made his duty to stop 

their mail. Now, gentlP.men a.ll know what a serious matter it would 

be to simply stop the mails for one day of large business concerns in 

the city of New Orleans and elsewhere improperly. I do not think it 

is probable that they will do it, but suppose they should do it. You 

have thus a man who has never had anything to do with that company 

made an acknowledged agent of the Louisiana Lottery Company by 

the law, and you expect to overturn that acknowledgment and that 

law by the simple disavowal to the Postmaster-General that he is an agent. 

Mr. BLOUNT. If the gentleman will allow me-- Mr. HOPKINS. The case supposed by the gentleman from Arkansas 

is not within the ra.nge of probabilities or within the range of po8Sibilities. But suppose that it should occur. We must take it for granted 

that n. person who is able to preside over the Post-Office Department is a gentleman of intelligence and of common sense, and if a thousaDd 

persons, or five persons, or any number of persons should be named in 

New Orleans as the agents of this lottery company, that would have to 

be determined before any action could be taken by the PostmasterGeneral. 

Mr. CRAIN. But suppose these persons lived in New Orleans and were advertised in New York. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Still the principle is the same. It has got to be 

published--

Mr. CRAIN. Where? 

Mr. HOPKINS. And that it has to be brought to the knowledge of 

the postmaster. 

Mr. CRAIN. Where? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Anywhere. 

Mr. CRAIN. Suppose it is published in New Orleans and a man in 

New York is made the agent, and he does not know it? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Suppose it is. 

Mr. CRAIN. Is that right? 

Mr. HOPKINS. The matter is brought to the attention of the Postmaster-General, and if he has any doubt he can investigate before he 

puts in force the machinery of this bill; but I am simply assuming as possible a fart that can not exist. 

Mr. ROGERS. It can exist. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Does the gentleman suppose that this company, 

which is financi:tlly responsible, will put itself in a position where it can be mulcted in damages? 

Mr. IWGERS. It is possible, but I ha•e said that it is not probable. But suppose five days before a national election takes place you 

happen to have a Democratic Postmaster-<Jeneral, and some irresponsible vagabond in New Orleans should publish that MA.Tr QUAY was the agent of a lottery company, you could go to work and st.op the 

whole of his mail, and thereby stop the working of the executive com- mittee. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Thai(; is presuming something that is not possible. 

Mr. ROGERS. I say that it is not probable, but other things of a like nature have been done during a political campaign. 

Mr. HOPKINS. But this bas got to be a public and official act of 

this company. 

Mr. CHEADLE. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman--

Mr. CRAIN. Mr. Speaker, u parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER p1·0 tempo1·e. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. CRAIK. I would like to know who controls the time on this 

side of the- Honse. 

The SPEAKER pro te.mporr. The Chair does not know whether any 

understanding has been reached. 

Mr. CRAIN. It seems from appearances that the gentleman from 

Illinois controls the time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is informed that no understanding bas been arrived at. 

Mr. HAYES. I desire to make a suggestion in that regard. 

The SPEAKERp1·0 tempore. The Chair will hear t.he gentleman 

from Iowa. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say thatasa member of the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads I opposed this bill in committee on account of its dangerous and vicious provisions and as not needed 

to reach the evil, even if that would justify them, and offered n. number 

of amendments, one of which is the snme as that offered by the gentle- man from Texas. I have to-day filed a minority report (not having it 

fully prepared before), but I am free to say that in view of 1 be sentiment which I found existing against ll>tteries, and in which I concur, 

and in view of the sentiment which I find to exist in fav or of this 

bill, even among some persons who ('Onsidcr that its provisions are 

even dangeromJ, I expected to content myself with putting upon record 

my objections to this legislation. They were, first, that it was uncon- stitn tional; second, that we had alr, ady a. sufficiency of legislation 

upon this subject; and, third, that the provisions of the bill were dangerous in that they gave too great a power to the Postmaster-General. 

I have no present intention of making any fac ions opposition to the 

passage of this bilJ, although I consider it n. Wflrse e·vil, if possible, than 

the one aimed at. I simply want to see it perfected, so far as it can be, 

by amendments, including such amendments as have been offered and some others that will be offered hereafter by myself or by others, and 

then to leave it there, providing it can be changed enough to relieve it 

. I . . ' 
,,. "" .... -, . 

1890. CONGRESSION .AL ·RECORD-HOUSE. 8703 

from some of its worst provisions. I thought it, however, but fair to 

say to the House that I had filed to-day a minority report, and I will 

put it in the RECORD here as a part of my remarks, as it has not been 

printed. 

CERTADl" SECTIONS OF TH.E REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO LOTTERIES. 

Mr. HAYES, from the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, submitted the following minority report (to accompany H. R. 11569): The und .. rsigned, dissenting from the views and recomnumdations of the ma- jority of the committee, begs leave to present the following minority report: It is quite common in legislative proceedings, from overzealousness in oppo- sition to an actual or supposed evil, or for designing persons desiring to cripple some interest not liked by them or that stands in the way of their interests, or through which they hope to gain popular approval, to seek to accomplish their end.s through legislation that is ill advised, not warranted by the exigencies of the cnse, that is outside of proper leg1slafrve action, or that is even unconstitu- tional. 

J am opposed to all such legislation, and am a believer in the theory thRt the tendency of all legislative bodies is toward too much legislation, and that no law should be passed on any subject not absolutely needed, and that we suffer more from legislation than from the lack: of it. Jn the matter under consideration I doubt the constitutionality of the proposed law; think it ill advised in its pro- visions, which are contrary and inimical to the theories and foundations of a. 

free government a.nd absolutely dangerous in their tendencies; and so I nm constrained to dissent from the report of the majority of the committee, although 

fully agreeing with them in their abhorence of the evil aimed a.t and knowing and fully recognizing that they have conscientiously arrived at their conclu- sions in view of this evil and for its abatement; but still, as great as is this enl, 

it is in my judgment infinitesimal as compared with the evil of this bill or of legislation not within the Constitution. The objections in my mind to this proposed bill and legislation are: First. It is unconstitutional. Second. There is no necessity for any such legislation, from the fact that we already have a sufficiency of law upon the subject, and we had better enforce it than make a. new one. Third. The provisions of the bill are bad a.ud even absolutely dangerous in that its tendency is towards centralization and interference with the proper functions and powers of the States; it a.bridges the freedom of the press; it gives a power of espionage to public officials as against the citizen; it provides for con- demnation without hearing, and makes the whim, caprice, or opinion of the Postmaster-Genera.I, good, bad, or indifferent as it may be, the final judgment upon which the rights of citizens may depend; makes him, in fact, judge, jury, and executioner withouts. pretense ot hearing or necessity for legal evidence, and adua.lly ext-ends this dangerous and vicious power with all its machinery for enforcement to any other "scheme or device" that, "upon evidence satis- factory to him," may not suit his exalted ideas of propriety. Jt actually makes the a.d vertisemen t, statement, of one person as to the agency of another an "acknowledgment of the existence of said agency" by such other person, not even stopping at creating a presumption, but casting upon such person, however innocent, the necessity of impeaching himself to clear his skirts even if it does not make the fact conclusive, and as a. penalty puts it in the power of the Postma.st-er-Genera.I to have the Department mark: his mail "fraudulent," not peliver it, but return it to the sender" under such regula- tions as the Postmaster-General may prescribe." and thus deprives the person to whom this communication may be sent of his property. the letter and it3 contents, without due process of Jaw; and to cap the climax provides that of- fenders against the provisions as to advertising, etc., ma.y be tried, condemned fined, and imprisoned either at the mailing point or destinl\tion of the publica: tion. 

In determining the constitutional power in Congress to enact such legislation there are three grounds to be considered: the power to establish pust--offices and post-roads, which is given to Congress in the Constitution, the provision therein that "Congress shall make no law a.bridging * * * the freedom of speech or of the press," and the equipoise or distribution of power and duty between the States and the General Government in their respective spheres, and the rela- tions and powe1·s of the one to the ot.her therein. It has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (Ex parte Jack- son, 95 United States, 732) that Congress having the power to designate what shall be carried in the mails it necessai-ily involves the right to determine what shall not be carried, and that letters and circulars concerning lotteries could by law be excluded. All lawyers well understand that any lang11age in the opin- ion of a. court is to be taken and applied with reference to the case as before the court and not necessarily extended to every other state of facts, and the com·t in this case not only did not decide that newspapers, the press, could be so ex- cludedhbut gaYe a very strong intimation to the contrary on the freedom of the press t eory, and most assuredly did not hold that this would or could be done as to a paper containing a lottery notice or advertisement in a. jurisdiction where lotteries were legal and such ad\·ertisements legitimate business. The court said upon the question: "The difficulty attending the subject arises not from the want of power in Congress to prescribe regulations as lo what shall constitute ma.ii-matter but from the necessity of enforcing them consistently with the rights reserved t~ the people of * * * far greater importance than the transportatiC'n of mail. In this enforcement a distinction has to be made between different kinds of mail- ma.tter. * * " Norean any regulation be enforced against the transportation of printed matter in the mail, which is open to examination, so as to interfere in any manner with the freedom of the press. Liberty of circulating is as essen- tial to that freedom as liberty of publishing; ind..,ed, without the circulation the publica,tion would be of little value. If, therefore, printed matter be ex- cluded from the mails, its transportation in any other way can not be forbidden by Congress." 

Liberty of the press, as meant in the Constitution, is not merely liberty to the proprietor or editor, but extends to all who may desire to u9e it as a. means of communication 01· advertisement, and the test of the legality of this communi- cation or advertisement is the law of the Stat~ where it is printed and Congress has no power over it, and having no such power can not interfere with it or its circulation, which would be an abridgment of the freedom of the press as against both those interested in the paper and those interested in the contents. :·Liberty ?f circulati!lg is 8.1! essential t? th.at freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, w1thou t the c1rculat10n the pubhcat10n would be of little value. "-United 

States Supreme Court. :A-nd ha".ing no s_uch P?'Yer it CAn not indire~tly discriminat~ against it by w1thdra.wmg from it a pnvtlege or legal protection necessary to its existence or usefulness, and especially under a delegated power in the Constitution held in trust, as it were. It will be a sorry day when Congress, outside of any question of absolute constitutional authority, undertakes to discriminate as between matters in the States, where one bas one policy and another a different one in regard to matters at least not malum in se. The Supreme Court in l\IcCulloh vs. Maryland (4 Wheaton, 426), in denying ~pe power of the State of Maryland to tax a. bank created by Congress, said: The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, bur- den, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted 

by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Govern- ment." 

This is and was not only good doctrine, but is a. principle absolutely essential to the maintenance and existence of the General Government, and the con- verse is equally l\S true and as necessary to the existence and maintenance of the States, and if Congress, in its supremacy, can Indirectly undermine, discrim- inate against, and in e1fect destroy the legislation of the States in matters ex- cluiJively reserved to the Slates, our system is destroyed, the rights of the States under their reserved powers practically ended, and the Goverrunent is central- ized, with the States mere figure-heads. To apply it: Jf a State, for purposes of revenue or from policy, desires to establish, tolerate, or legalize lotteries, which it has an undenied and undoubted authority to do, and which is~ matter over which Congress has no earthly concern, and then Congress can, by indirection, 

through the exercise of another power, practicaUy nullify and invalidate this action and make criminals of those within that 8ta.te that do the customary and essential acts to Ua existence and prosperity according to its design and the law of the State, then the States might as well go out of business and cease to exist. The claim and exercise of power al ways increases and never decreases. I am opposed to the continu;;.l encroachment by Congress upon the field of State do- main, under one excuse and another, and the tendency to accomplish desired ends over matters that we have no constitutional power over or in relation to by indirection and through the exercise of some other power, and, upon th.:i other hand, am equally jealous of the powers of Congress, which should, however, not be extended beyond the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but which should be zealously maintained within that scope, exercised fearlessly and independently by Congress and neither be surrendered nor, what is worse, delegaled. I do not deem it necessary in the limit of a. report to discuss each of the prop- ositions stated as infirmities in this bill. Their statement brings them to notice both for consideration and discussion. Probably the most vicious provision of this bill is that one providingths.tfor 

depositing or sending by mail, or so causing to be done, anything in violation of the act, which would include newspapers containing an advertisement for a lottery, a list of drawings, or the result even of a drawing at a. church fair, or the same matters in a letter or postal C'ard, a. fine and imprisonment aha.II be imposed, and allowing the indictment, trial, and punishment either in the dis- trict where the mailing was done or delivery made. Every honest man should repel a.ny such provision, and the press of the United States should bring its great power to bear in condemnation of it. It is freighted with tyranny and oppression, and will be the engine of gross outrages. The complaint against the King of Great Britain in the Declaration of Indevendence. tha.t he had trans- ported our people "beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses," will ueed new enunciation. and never existed as a fact to an extent invited by this pro- vision. 

It is supported, I understand, in analogy to the law of libel which it is claimed so permits proseculions, but there are a. variety of reasons why this analogy affords no jusiifi.cation. Even if the common law so permits in one case, and the cases are analogous, is no reason why we should by express enactment en· large a wrong principle. However, there is no analogy, and if made analogous I should not object. A libel is a publication founded in malice, and no lawyer wonld claim that a publication entirely innocent. and harmless where made could be made the subject of a. prosecution in another jurisdiction where it might happen to be otherwise and when it was sent there with no malice. But this act proposes to do just this absurd thing and make the publisher of a. news- paper containing a notice or advertisement of a lawful. legitimate business where printed liable to criminitl prosecution and penalties in every jurisdiction to which his paper may be sent to a subscriber. In the benighted State ot Iowa in case of a. tie vote for public office the prize is determined by lot and chance, and I see no reason why the publisher of every paper who announces the drawing aud the winner of the prize is not subject to prosecution under this bill for every copy of his pa.per that he send'! to any part of the United States. Jt will be found that the same absurd results follow in many instances. 

The provision giving the Postmaster-General autocratic powers "upon evi- dence satisfactory to him" in relation to matters affecting lotteries is bad enough and entirely out of keeping with the principles of free government based on the rights, among others, of every man to demand that be shall not be depriYed of life, liberty, or property without dne process of law, a.nd to demand the constitutional guaranty that he sha.ll be secure in his papers a.nd effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. But this is a. small matter, both in pr nciple and probable practical results, compared with the provision giving such power where this official may think or assume to think that a person "is conducting any other scheme or device for obtaining money or property of any kind through the mails by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." In view of the character of this proposed legislation, I recommend that the bill be not passed, and, in view of the fact that we already have a.sufficiency of legislation upon the subject, see no necessity for even attempting to improve it by amendment. If the present laws need any amendments to perfect them or their workings, I submit that it should be done by itself, and have, what this bill has not had, first considcratic.n in the proper committee. WALTER I. HAYES. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 

HAYES] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HOPKINS] can agree 

upon the time that they desire for general debate, the Chair will be glad 

to carry out their arrangement and to recognize the gentleman from 

Iowa [Mr. HAYES] to control the time upon the one side and thegentleman from Illinois [Mr. HOPKINS] to control the time upon the other. 

Mr. HAYES. Will the gentleman from Texas [1\Ir. CRAL.~] state 

how much time he want.s upon this pending amendment? 

Mr. CRAIN. I suppose about fifteen minutes. 

A MEMBER. How much time has been already consumed? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that there has 

been about an equal amountoftimeoccupied by those in favor and by 

those who are opposed to the bill. 

l\fr. HAYES. How-much time remains? 

The SPEAKER prn temp01·e. There has been no limit fixed. 

Mr. HA YES. Is fifteen minutes ou each side sufficient time on this 

particular amendment? 

Mr. CRAIN. Yes. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from 

Indiana [Mr. CHEA.DLE] had the floor. What was the announcement 

of the Chair with regard to the time? 

The SPEAKER pro teniziore. The gentleman from Indiana. [Mr. 

CHEADLE] has the floor, but he suspended a moment to see if an arrangement could be agreed upon as to the time to be occupied in gen-

·' 

. ' · 

·, 

I• 

.. \ 

~ ,. 

·.:_ .. :. 
. ~ 

' ... · .· ·-

8704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

eral debate. There are two hours and fifteen minutes remaining for 

general debate, and the Chair will recognize J:l:entlemen alternately on 

each side if no other arrangement is agreed upon. The gentleman from 

Indiana [Mr. CHEADLE] has the floor. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Mr. Speaker, before my friend from Indiana 

proceeds, I would like to hear the amendment read which was proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCKALEW]. 

The Clerk a~ain read the amendment. 

Mr. HAYES. l\Ir. Speaker, has any arrangement been come to as to the time? 

The SPEAKER pro iempore. Under the rule adopted the Chair understAnds that the pre.-ious question must be considered as ordered at 

forty minutes past 4 o'clock. 

Mr. HAYES. I ask unanimous consent that fifteen minutes be given 

to the consideration of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas 

[Mr. CRAIN] an:l the amendment to that offered by the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania [Mr. BliCKALEW]. 

Mr. HOPKINS. H the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HAYES] will 

give me his attention, I think we can agree upon this amendment, because we upon this side are willing to accept the amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCKALEW] totheamendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. CRAIN]. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I hope the gentleman will not do that. The gentleman will me that by such a course he is attempting to do that with 

the Department which never bas been done before, to restrict its action 

by ralea of evidence. I do not think that is good policy. I think it 

is better to ]eave the Departmevt without any such roles. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa[ Mr. HAYES] 

asks unanimous consent that fifteen minutes upon each side be allowed 

for the discussion of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas and 

the amendment to that amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCKALEW] 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

Mr. CHEADLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the 

House, and especially of my colleague on the committee., the gentleman 

from Georgia [Mr. BLOUNT], to the language of the report in reference 

to this particular provision of section 2, which I think makes pt>rfectly 

plain the intention of the law. He is aware, and so are other members 

of the committee who have heard the evidence, of the difficulty with 

which the Department bas heretofore been conlronted in dealing with 

this problem. When the existing law was enacted it reached the firm 

of M. A. Dauphin & Co., the principals of this lottery scheme, and it 

has been enforced faitbfally against that firm; but, notwithstanding 

the existence of the statute and its rigid enforcement, it has failed to 

meet the case and suppress the evil, and why? Because the firm of 

M. A. Dauphin & Co. appointed four national banks in the city of New 

i)rleans as their agents, and these remittances of registered letters, 

money-orders, and postal notes were made to those banks, and they 

are going there by thou~nds and scores of thousands every week. The 

Department has full knowledge of that fact, but under the existing law 

it can not correct the evil, and the provision of this bill which the~entleman from Texas [Mr. CRAIN] proposes to strike out is the rnry Ii e 

of the section, because it fixes the acknowledgment of the agency, so 

that the Department can make no mistake in acting upon it. 

Now, what does this bill provide shall constitute au acknowledgment of agency? Why, sir, an agency may be acknowledged in various ways; and this bill provides that when any person, firm, bank, or 

corporation is publicly advertised in the great newspapers of the country as acting as the agent of this lottery company, the permiSBion of snch 

advertisement of such person, firm, bank, or corporation shall be taken 

by t be Government as an acknowledgment of their agency; and when 

that occurs it is proposed the Government of the United Stab~s shall do 

what? Return to the sender all registered letters and all money-orders 

issued and mailed to such person, firm, bank, or corporation thus adv~rtised as the agent of a lottery company. It does stiem to me, Mr. 

Speak.er, that this is the very life and soul of the law, and necessary 

if we shall suppress this eviJ. The report, after setting cut the defects of the existing law, to which I have alluded, state~: 

The substitut.e bill proposes to cure t.hese defects by including within its pro- visions anv agent or representative of the lottery company acting as an indi- vidual, or as a. firm, b:l.nk, corporation, or association of anv kind, and declar- ing that the pnblii;;hed n.dvertisement by a. lottery concern that remittances for it may be made to "n.ny other person, firm, bank, corporation or association ~ • • shall be held to be :i.u acknowledgment of the existence of said agency by all the parties named therein." If enactedSays t}:ie report, and it contains all that need be said to the House 

on this questionlf enacted it would permit the Postmn.ster-General to deny to any person, bank, or other concern that acts as an agent of the lottery company, the benefits of the registry and money-ordet_ systems, and would result in compelling the lottery compl\ny to obtain rcmiltan:!es through express companies or other similar channel. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Tho gentleman says it is proposed to return the 

letters to .the writers thereof? 

Mr. CHEADLE. Yes, sir. 

1\Ir. CUMMINGS. "Loder this bill bo\V are you to ascertain the 

writers of the letters? Tho bill expressly states that no postmaster or other person shall be authorized to open any letter not addressed to 

himself. 

,-

l\Ir. CHEADLE. This section of the law, I will say to the gentleman, deals only with registered letters and money-orders, and in all 

such cases the sender is known. 

Mr. HAYES. I yield .five minutes to the gentleman from Texas 

[Mr. CRAIN]. 

Mr. CRAIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentJeman from Illinois [Mr. HoPKrns] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH] have as- serted that the Louisiana Lottery Company is a gigantic corporation 

possessed of abundant means and that it will be :financially responsible 

to any individual whom it '.!Ilay advertise as its agent, if such advertisement should work detriment to him. I do not understand that 

the question of financial responsibility is involved in this measure. 

My understanding is that the bill is aimed, not at any particular corporation, not at any individual scheme in this country or out of it, 

bat at. all of these enterprises which have for their object the acquisition of money by false pretenses, as stated in the report of the com· 

mittee. 

Such being the case, the question for us to consider is the principle 

that underlies the proposition involved in theportionofthe bill which 

I propose to strike out. It is immaterial to me whether a lottery company or a company engaged in any other scheme which may advertise 

me as its agent is financially responsible or not. The attempt to enforce redress from the company would involve litigation that would 

put me to expense. The real question is this: Am l to be deprived of 

my money-orders and my registered packages because some individual 

or corporation-not the Louisiana Lottery Company alone, but any 

corporation or individual in this broad land-that chooses to engage 

in an illegal enterprise, may advertise me as it.s agent nolens vole11s? 

The proposition involves no question ofae<1uiescence, noquestion of 

knowJedge; but J am condemned to be punished unheard. The mere 

fuct that an individual who may be my enemy, or who, for some reason 

best known to himself, may desire to injure me, chooses to advertise 

me as his agent, he being engaged at the time in an illegal enterprise, 

snbjectsmetopunishment. How? By depriving me not only of such 

mail as may be addressed to me in my capacity as agent, but of all 

my mail that is registered. That is the legitimate trend, scope, aim, 

and purpose of this propositionrThe gentleman from Ohio-inadvert.ently I know-stated that the 

bill would not operate in the manner I have indicated, because it carries a provision that only such registered packages as are addressed to 

the person as agent should be marked "fraudulent." Such is not 

the case--

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I understood my friend to say the letters 

or packa!!es might be opened. 

Mr. CRAIN. Oh, no; I neYer said that, beca.ase I know that is the 

real reason why the Postmaster-General has not been able thus far to 

suppress these lotteries. A man's sealed letter the Supreme Court of 

the United States has decided to be as secure from violation, except 

upon warrant issued on oath or affirmation, as any of his private papers 

in his house; and this vei:y bill states that there shall be no right vested 

in the Postmaster-Genera.I or anybody else to open any letter not addressed to himself. So that the question of nj.!ency raised by my friend 

from Ohio has nothing to do with the proposition embraced in this feat- ure of the bill; and he himl'lelf admitted it when he read the bill and 

discovered there was- uo such provision as he had suggested. 

Now, a word in reply to my friend from Indiana [Mr. CHE.ADLE]. 

He says there are various ways of appointing agents. I do not beJieve 

he is a lawyer--

Mr. CHEADLE. I said there are various ways of acknowledging 

an agency. 

Ur. C}{AIN. I do not believe he is a Jawyer, or he would not maintain on the floor of this Honse that any man can be constituted an agent 

without his own acquiescence. Such a. thing has never been known, 

legaJly or constitutionalJy, in tho history ot any civilized nation. The 

idea that you, living in Louisiana and conducting a lottery, shall have 

the right to constitute me your agent by publishing in the Louisiana. 

papers the fact that I, living in New York or Texas, am your agent, 

is a perfect absurdity; and in saying this I mean no disrespect to my 

friend from Indiana, but am simply characterizing the position which 

he assnmes. 

You can not constitute or legally create any man your agent unless 

he acquiesces in the appointment and accepts such agency. 

Now, one word more, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the gentleman in 

charge of the bill--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CRAIN. Give me a minute longer. I ask unanimous consent 

for one minute longer. I hear no objection. [Laughter.] 

As was suggested by my friend from Georgia, this proposition is 

entirely unnecessary, although, as all legisJation is a compromise, I 

have told the gentleman in charge of the bill that I am willing to ac- cept theamendmentoffered by the gentJeman from Pennsylvania rather 

than have the proposition remain in the bill as it is. But if he will 

look at the beginning of section 2 be will find it provides thatThe Poatma.ster-GenP.ra1 may, upon e\·idence satisfactory to him tha.t any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gi~ enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, etc. 
: . , . ' .· 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-HOUSE. 8705 

So that the Postmaater-General has ample authority under that provision. Now, the only evidence required in the original section is that 

it shall be satisfactory to him. Why then add a proviso as to the character of the evidence which shall control his action? 

Mr. DINGLEY. But that expression refers to what constitutes the 

lottery, not the agent. 

Mr. CRAIN. No; it says "agent or representative" in the body of 

the section. 

Mr. DING LEY. I think, if my friend will read it carefully, he will 

find be is mistaken. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I yield three minutes to the gentleman from New 

Hampshire [Mr. MOORE]. 

Mr. MOORE, of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, the provision of the 

bill which the gentleman from Texas proposes to strike out is, in my 

judgment, the vital part of the bill, and if stricken from it the force of 

the measure is destroyed. 

The trouble that has been found by the Post-Office authorities in 

suppressing the Louisiana lottery is because of the remittances by 

registered letter to the First Na ti on al Bank of New Orleans in place of 

directly to the company, and the Department has found under existing law that it can not stop the transmission of the registered _ letters 

to that bank, and therefore the Louisiana lottery has turned over all 

of its registered letters, by public advertisement, to the First National 

Bank of New Orleans; and I hold one of these public advertisements 

in my hand which provides for addressing registered letters containing 

currency to the First National Bank of New Orleans, La.: 

Address registered letters containing currency to New Orleans National Bank. 

Now, this same bank appears upon the lottery tickets of the Louisiana. Lottery Company as their guarantor for the payment of the prizes 

which may be drawn, and I hold that guaranty also in my hand. I · repeat, therefore, that if you strike out or change this provision in the 

bill in any material respect, you take from the bill the vital part, which 

the Post-Office Department has prepared with great care, and which 

will give them power to stop registered letters sent to this First National Bank in New Orleans, and unless yon pass this provision in the 

precise shape in which it is drawn, it will raise the question whether 

Congress intended to cover the entire enterprise or not. 

No gentleman appears in opposition to the bill-we are told that 

all are in favor of it--and therefore it raises the violent presumption 

that the only opposition to it would come by some insidions and covert 

amendment; and I want gentlemen on this floor, if they mean to crush 

this hydra-headed monster, which is demoralizinl? the young, the pour, 

and the needy throughout the country, as no other institution in America 

has ever done, to beware of the insidious suggestions involved in the 

amendment of the gentleman from Texas. 

The favor with which lotteries were regarded both by Congress and 

by some of the States for the first forty years of our history was largely due to the French code of morals, based on the toleration of 

vice rather than on its suppression. 

One of the earliest records of this vice shows it8 relation to a corrupt era of the state. 

The worst of the Roman tyrants were wont to excite and amuse their 

abject snbject8 by offering houses and slaves as prizes in lotteries. The 

fifteenth century saw their revival in Europe. They ap~eared almost 

simultaneously in Italy, France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and 

England. The device was usually employed to raise the revenue nec- essary for some public work or to aid in floating t.he bonds issued by the 

Government for war purposes, as was the case with France in the 

method employed to pay the cost of the Spanish succession war. They are still employed by Austria, Italy, Spain, and some of the secondrate German States as indirect aids to revenue. 

This species of gambling, when once authorized and encouraged by 

the state, spreacls with great rapidity. 

In Europe, in the first quarter of this century, so corrupting to the 

morals of the peope did it become that statesmen became alarmed. 

Lord Lytton in England and Turgot in France condemned it and 

urged its suppression. Under the influence of Lytton lotteries were 

suppressed by act of Parliament in 1826, and through the influence of 

Turgot and the Bishop of Atitun the royal lottery in France, whose 

income rose t-0 nearly a million dollars annually, was suppressed in 

1836. Belgium had already prohibited lotteries in~830. 

The change of policy in Europe touching this species of gambling was simultaneous with a similar change in America. 

One of the first States to become aroused to the enormity of this evil was New Hampshire. That State enacted a prohibitory statute in 

1791, and again the subject was sharply brought to the attention of 

the Legio;;lature aB early as 18'27 by Governor Pierce, father of the late 

President Pierce. A more stringent prohibitory statute was enacted 

which bas remained on the statute-books oft.hat State to this day. 

Pennsylvania and l\Ias.sachusetts passed similar statutes in 1826, 

New York enacted similar legislation in 1833, Connecticut in 1834, 

Maryland in 1836, and Virginia in 1837. Many of the new States have 

prohibited lotteries in their organic law. Even the constitution of 

Louisiana declares that "gambling is a vice and it shall be the duty 

of the Assembly to enact laws for its suppression." 

XXI-545 ... . 

The course of judicial decisions touching this evil has kept pace with 

the action of the States and has been signally progressive and effective. 

The first notable decision was made more than forty years ago, Mr. 

Justice Grier delivering the opinion, in the couree ef which he said: 

Experience bas shown that the common forms of gambling o.re compara- tively innocuous when pla-0ed in contrast with the widespread pestilence of lotteries. The former are confined to a few persons and places, but the latter infest the whole community; it enters every dwelling; it rea-0hes every class; it 

preys upon the hard earnings of the poor; and it plunders the ignorant and 

simple. (Phalen vs. Virginia, 8 Howard, lll3.) 

The statutes of Virgmia suppres~ing lotteries were fully sustained 

by this decision. 

As early as 1826 Massachusetts prohibited the advertising of lotteries 

in newspapers, and the same year the publisher of the Evening Gazette, of Boston, was found guilty of violating the statute. This is the 

first case noted. (Commonwealth vs. Clapp, 5 Pick., 41.) 

In The People vs. Sturdevant, the next leading case, which arose in 

New York, the defense was that the lottery company whose ticket was sold was authorized by the statute of Delaware. 

The opinion in this case vigorously announced that Delaware--

has no extra-judicial jurisdiction. Its laws are of no binding force in any othe1· 

State. (The PeopJe11s. Sturdevant, ·wendell, 23, 420.) 

In Commonwealth vs. Dana (2 Metcalf, 329) the justice announcing 

the opinion declared that "the laws of Rhode Island, or any other 

State, have no force in this Commonwealth." In the same case it was held that the statut~ was constitutional which authorized a search and 

seizure of lottery tickets. 

The People vs. Charles {l New York, 1880) found the publisher of 

the Wall Street Reporter guilty of publishing a lottery advertisement. 

This case arose in 1875. 

In 1883 the supreme court of New Hampshire (State i·s. Moore, 63 

New Hamphire, 9) unanimously sustained the statute prohibiting the 

advertising of lotteries, though the lottery company in question had 

been incorporated by the Legislature of a sovereign State. 

But the most striking and far-reaching opinion yet delivered on this 

subj ect was rendered by the late Chief-Justice Waite, in Stone vs. Mississippi, United States Reports, 101, 818. 

In that opinion the Chief-Justice lays down the doctrine that- - 1 -

No Legislature cau bargain a way the public health or the public morals. The l ' 

people themselves cR.n not do it, much less tbel.r servants. The supervision of 

both these subjects of governmental power is continuing in its nature and they are to be dealt with as the special ex:i~encies of the moment require. Govern- ment is organized for their preservation and can not divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and 

the discretion can uot be parted with, any more tho.n the power itself. ~ 

Lotl~riesContinues the Chief-Justiceare a 11pecies of gambling, and w1·ong in their influences. They disturb the 

checks and balances of a well ordered community. Society built on such a foundation would almost of necessity bring forth a population of speculators and gamblers, living on the expectation of what, by the casting of lots or by lot, 

chance, or otherwise, might be awarded to them from the accumulation of others. 

Certainly the right to suppress them is governmental, to be exercised at all 

times by those in power, at their discretion. (Ide-m, 820, 821.) 

These are profound and significant words. They are the warning 

voice of all history, as ~ell as the staU,ment of the highest judicial 

truth, enforcing the lesson which is written in the ruins of empires 

and republics, cities and peoples, borne down and blotted out by their 

self-imposed partnership with vice and crime. 

Under the steady legislation of the States and the uniform decisions 

of the courts, this most formidable species of gambling had been nearly 

extirpated in this country until the rise of the Louisiana lottery. 

Gambling as a national vice had nearly died out in this country, and no people were more free from it than the people of the United States. 

The Louisiana Lottery Company was chartered by the Legislature of 

Louisiana in 1868, for twenty-fiveyears from Januaryl, 1869.i It has ' .' J, 

more than four years yet to run, its charter expirifig December 31, 

1894. .: This is a private corporation and its affairs are veiled in the greatest 

secrecy. The number of its stockholders is not known, but they aro believed to be less than twenty in number. Some fi. ve or six control 

the great majority of the stock. 

All the proceedin~s nnd workings of the company are carefully con- cealed from the public. Four national banks in New Orleans (The 

Louisiana National Bank, The State National Bank, The New Orleans 

National Bank, and The Union National Bank) guaranty the prizes '. 

drawn. 

The stock of tlte company embraces 12, 000 shares at a par value of 

$1,200,000. Owing to the large dividends paid by the company the 

shares are quoted at $1,200, or an aggregate of$12,000,000. 

The dividends are believed to exceed, on the average, 100 per cent., 

and last year, I nm informfid, the dividends were 170 per cent. 

This dividend, large as it is, represents only half of the profits of the 

company for a single year. The other profits go to certain preferred 

stockholders, very few in number. 

The following has been furnished me as the actu:i.l financial exhibit 

of the company as now conducted : 

LOUISIANA LOTTERY COlI.PA .. Y. 

Ten drawings per annum-two special drawing11, 

I , _.' 

; 

.... · 

I • 

·-

-. .• : 

•, 

,· .. 

I, 
. : 

.. 

.. 

8706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. · AUGUST 16, 

IN COXE. 

Ten drawings, 1, 000, 000 tickets at ~20 each...... ................................. $20, 000, 000 

Two drawings, 100, 000 tickets at 40 each ..................................... ;... 8, 000, OllO 

EXPENSES. 

~~~==: ~~~ ~~~~~·~;."i"c~i;~;i~~::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::. ::~ Commissions to agents ..............• - ...................... ............................. . Advertising ................................................. - .................................... . All other expenses ........................................................................... .. Net profits ....................................................................................... .. 

28,000,000 

10,548,000 

4,219,200 

2,000,000 

2,000,000 

1,000,000 

8,232,800 

28,000,000 

In this exhibit no account is made of the daily drawings, the exact 

figures of which are not obtainable, but they exceed $2,000,000 annually, making the enormous annual income of $30,000,000, or twice 

the snm that was paid Napoleon by Jefferson in 1801 for the entire 

Louisiana Purchase. 

The remarkable thing about this lottery is the fact that 93 per cent. 

ot the income is derived outside the State of Louisiana, from the other 

States of the Union and the Territories. There is not a city or considerable village in the country which does not contribute to the enormous revenues of this gigantic gambling concern. It was the boast of 

the champions of the company in the recent struggle before the Louisiana Legislature that it wao "enriching the State by millions." 

Were the Louisiana lottery to become extinct on the expiration of 

its charter in 1894, the country might consent t-0 be plundered in the 

interim, but recent events of a startling character have rendel'ed even 

such. a consummation improbable if not impossible. 

After one of the most furious and humiliating struggles that have 

ever occurred before a legislative body, both branches of the Louisiana 

Legislature, by a two-thirds vote of each house, decided to submit a 

constitutional amendment t-0 the people, at an election in 1892, which 

proposes to "carry the charter of the Louisiana Lottery Company up 

to the year 1919." 

It is true that Governor Nicholls, the honest and intrepid executive 

of Louisiana, vetoed the act, and it failed in one branch of the Legislature, by the sudden death of a member, to pass by the necessary twothirds vote over the veto. 

It is boldly claimed by the champions of the lottery company that 

the amendment is carried without the approval of the governor and 

that his veto is a nullity. 

However this may be, the country is threatened with a long continuance of this monstrous corporation which exists only to plunder the 

weak and unwary, to corrupt the young and ignorant, and to spread 

broadcast the delusive and debauching doctrine that gambling is a surer 

road to livelihood than patient and honorable industry. 

The States are powerless to extirpate the Louisiana. lottery. They 

are powerless even to protect themselves from its insidious brigandage. 

They have exhausted their resolll'ces. The mails, the national banks, 

and the channels of interstate transportation are controlled by the national authority and by national authority alone. The national Congress and the national Executive are alone equal to the overthrow of 

this pestilent corporation, which has become the richest, the :most audacious, and t,he most powerful gambling institution that the world 

bas ever known. 

1\lr. BLOUN'l'. I regret very much that the gentleman who has 

inst taken his seat could not rest himself upon a fair discussion of the 

question without throwing into it an intimation that there is an insidious purpose on the part of anybody in connection with the bill. 

So far as I am concerned, I fling it back as utterly false. I shall discuss any public measnr~ according to the dictates of my own conscience 

and my understanding and intelligence, and with this end in view I 

propose now to examine the objections the gentleman has made to the 

amendment under discussion. 

I have been advocating this class of legislation for four years. My 

criticism in relation to the.section has been simply this: That the proviso which my friend proposes to strike out, if left in, is bimply a restraint upon the power of the Postmaster-General. The opening sec- tion of the bill declares that the Postmaster-General "may, upon 

evidence satisfactory to him,'' do such and such things. That is to say, 

he may take the evidence in this proviso as a rule, or take any other 

rule he sees fit, to reach a conclusion by. Now, if that be true, then 

what next? Why, under existing law the difficulty rises in this way, 

as shown by the reports accompanying the bill: 

The Louisiana. State Lottery Company met the order of the Postmaster-General by announcing that thereafter registered letters and money-orders could be sent C"o the New Orleans National Bank, and thereupon the Postmaster-General issued a. subsequent order prohibiting the delivery of registered letters and 

the payment of money-orders to said bank. The bank sought an injunction of 

the court to restrain the postmaster at New Orleans from enforcing this order, 

which was granted, and from that time until the present such deliveries and p~yments ha.ve been made to that bank witholllt let or hinderanceWhy?-

for the reason that it was belie>ed that the anthol'ity of the Postmaster-General, 

under the existing provisions of law, was not sufficient to justify him in declarinar that a. delivery to the bank wa.s a. delivery to the lottery company, and such a delivery as was prohibited by law. 

But before yon reach this provision, sir, you have this: 

SEo. aQ....99. The Postmaster-General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him 

that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift enter· prise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personal prop· 

erty by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any person or company is 

conducting any othe'l' scheme or device for obtaining money or property of o.ny 

kind through the mails by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representa- tions, or promises, instruct postmasters at any post-office at which registered 

letters arrive, directed to any such person or company, or to the agent or representative of any such person or company, whether such agent or representative is 

acting as an individual or as a. firm, bank, corporation, or association of any kind, to return all such registered letters to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed, with the word" Fraudulent" plainly writ- ten or stamped upon the outside thereof; and all such letters so returned to such postinasters shall be by them returned to the writers thereof, under such 

regulations as the Postmaster-General may prescribe. 

You Lave not reached the part proposed to be stricken out, but you 

have reached the law authorizing him to cut off the bank. You have 

reached the provision which enables him to cut off the New Orleans 

First National Bank or any other institution of the same character. 

You have vested him with all the power that the situation yon have 

depicted requires. 

I will vote for this measure even if the House shall not concur with 

me in regard to this amendment, but my purpose is to preserve to the 

executive department of this Government that discretion, unrestrained 

by roles of courts, which enables them efficiently and wisely to administer the gre.at departments of the Government. That is all I want. 

Mr. DINGLEY. Now, as the gentleman has some time, I want to 

ask him a question. Itis this: I understand the gentleman to say that 

under this .section 2 the Postmaster-General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him, etr.., determine as to the agency. Now, is that true? 

Does the bill say so? 

Mr. BLOUNT. Yes. 

Mr. DING LEY. Now, as I understand, the" evidence satisfactory" 

to him refers to the determination that any person or enterprise is a 

lottery; but the agency must be determined by the rules oflaw. 

l\fr. BLOUNT. My friend will have to read the whole section to 

find out about that. 

l\fr. DINGLEY. Is not that so? Because that is the vital point 

this discussion tums upon. 

l\Ir. BLOUNT. My friend and I do not understand it alike. The 

difficulty with the law as it now stands, as the report says and the 

Departments say, grows out of the fact that there is nothing in the 

statute applying this authority to national banks, and this section, in 

lines 16 and 17, expressly inserts it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand, if what the gentleman says be true, that it ha.s any effect 

on this argument. 

The proposition is to strike out a certain rule of' evidence. It does 

not relate to the character of the agent, but to strike ont a certain rule 

of evidence by which he is held regponsible for the action of another. 

If gentlemen can not agree with me in relation to this matter, then I 

ask, in the interest of the Executive Department, that if the amendment of my friend from Pennsylvania is to be a.ccepted by this House 

this shall be added to it: 

But the Postmaster-Genera.I shall not be precluded from ascertaining the ex- istence of such agency in any way. 

.A. MElIBER. In any legal way? 

Mr. BLOUNT. In any legal way. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I will say t-0 my friend from Georgia that the suggestion I madeThe SPEAKER pro tempo re. The time of the gentleman from Georgia 

has expired. The gentleman from Iowa yields three minutes to the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BuoKALEW]. 

Mr. BUCK.A.LEW. Mr. Speaker, I have only a word to say. We 

must remember that this is a general law, not applicable specially to 

the Louisiana lottery, but to gift enterprises and to various matters 

that may arise hereafter in the history of the country. Now, it is abhorrent to reason and sound sense, to every legal principle which has 

obtained in this country and in all free countries, to render one man 

liable for the act of another, to bind him by the act of another; but 

upon the face of this bill I find that objectionable feature, and I move 

to stl'ike it out. I propose that we shall amend the text of the bill 

by providing that a publication in a gazette, which presumptively 

reaches or may reach the whole community, will raise a presumption 

against the alleged agent mentioned. That is all. 

l\Ir. CHIPMAN. .A.primafacie presumption. 

J\Ir. BUCKALEW. .A. prima fade pre.sumption. That will not impair the efficiency of this bill. It will not prevent the Postmaster-General or his subordinates from acting under this bill and executing it 

to the very letter; bnt it puts the bill in reasonable, decent, and proper 

form, .and in that form I think this provision a reasonable one and 

necessary to the execution of the law. If it shall be so amended I shall 

not object to it. I am not in favor of striking it out. 

Mr. H.A. YES. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from 

Iowa. [Mr. KERR]. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the insinuation that I am not 

in sympathy with this proposed legislation or that members have sinister motives in striking out this amendment I think is not warranted, 

certainly not against the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BLOUNT], and it 

ought not to be against my.self. I made the suggestion that this change 

ought to be made, and I will say that I am in full sympathy with the 
·. 

• • r I • 

. ·' :• '. ··' .- ... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAJJ RECORD-HOUSE. 8707 

stronge.st ldnd of legislation that ought to be adopted, in conformity 

with the rules of law, against these lotteries. Bnt while it is some- times considered admissible, ill view of the difficulty of proving a case, 

to declare that certain things shall be presumptive evidence against 

certain individuals, I have never heard it claimed anywhere, or by any 

legislative body in my life before, that a certain thing should be declared conclusive evidence against anybody. 

This law makes certain things absolutely conclusive in regard to cer- tain points, and we ought not to pass any such law. Now, to declare 

that the advertisement by the Louisiana Lottery Company that acer- tain person is an agent shall be presumptive evidence of the agency, 

is perfectly proper, but to ileclare that such an advertisement shall be 

conclusive upon that person, is not proper. 

Ur. GROSVENOR. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

l\Ir. KERR, of Iowa. If I had the time, I would. If it is only a 

short question, I will. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. Itis a very short question. Is it not conclusive 

evidence against the lottery that they themselves have indicated such 

a person a.s an agent? 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Certainly. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. Has anybody else any interest in that question· 

except the lottery company? 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Any person who receives mail is interested in 

it. .A:ny person who receives mail has an interest in not giving the 

lottery company the power t-0 declare beyond the hope of contradiction 

that he is doing an illegal business, and that, therefore, his mail shall 

be suppressed. Now, the only object of this section is to give the postmaster authority over the mail or over any person receiving mail which 

may be addressed to him by any one in the United States; and if he 

is to be estopped absolutely from denying anything, if he is to be 

estopped from showing that he is doing a legitimate business, if the 

action of some other person is to be held as an acknowledgment against 

him, it will be agreat injustice to the citizen. But it is no great injustice 

to say that the advertisement of the company that he is an agent is 

presumptive evidence of his agency. · 

Mr. HILL. Right there, if the gentleman will permit me. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Certainly. 

Mr. HILL. Is there any way of getting rid of that acknowledgment after it once obtains? 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. It is a matter that rests exclusively with the 

postmaster. [Criesof"Vote!" "Vote!"] 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has five 

minutes remaining. 

The gentleman from Ohio [l\fr. KENNEDY] deaires to present a re- port from the Committee on Enrolled Bills. 

DAVID L. TRUEX. 

Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported 

that they had examined and found truly enrolled the bill (H. R. 5107) 

for the relief of David L. Truex; when the Speaker signed the sam 

LOTTERIES. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the gentleman fr 

New Hampshire [Mr. MooRE] in making the remark he did to the 

House had no intention to cast any reflection on the gentleman from 

Georgia. [Mr. BLOUNT] or the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HAYES] or any person who has spoken upon the opposite side. I know personally that the gentleman from Georgia has been as earnest and zealous a friend of this bill as any member of the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads and I know that the gentleman from Iowa has always 

advocated such measures as would stop matter of this kind from being 

transmitted through the mails. 

But I think what he desired to say, and what I desire to reiterate, 

is the fact that these arguments being urged in favor of the amendments which are now pending before the House were liable to have the same eflect upon the bill that open and determined oppol'ition ~ht 

have. This bill has been carefully prepared by the Post-Office Department. It has passed the inspection of the Attorney-General. It has 

also been considered by the Post-Office Committee of the Senate, whieh 

is composed in part of some of the ablest lawyers in that body, and 

they all concur that this section which is proposed to be stricken out 

shall remain in the bill and become a part of the law. 

Now, it is unnecessary for me to state to members of the Honse that 

this bill is drawn in view of -the experience that this Department has 

bad in dealing with this lottery company in Louisiana. It is directed 

against that and all other institutions of like character. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Taking into consideration that you have in line 

16 the words ''as an individual, or as a firm, bank, corporation, or 

association of any other kind," what difficulty is there that the au- thority given in the first two lines to the Postmaster-General is not 

ample to restrain payments of money-orders to any bank or other agent? 

Mr. HOPKINS. I think the gentleman from Maine has slready 

answered the gentleman from Georgia on that question. The authority given to the Postmaster-General seems to relate to the corporation 

itself, but not to the extent of an agent. At least, the development of 

-· 

the debate here shows that there is doubt upon that ·question, and that 

doubt will be taken advantage of by the corporation, who will drag 

the Department into litigation. Now, what we propose to do in this 

bill is to make it so clear and so conclusive as to the duties of the Postmaster-General that he who runs can read the power and authority 

here granted. 

The objections raised by the gentleman from Texas are purely supposititious. In the very nature of things they can not and will not 

exist. He puts up a man of straw here, and then attempts to make an argument to knock him down in order to defeat the very purposes of 

this bill. In the litigation--

Mr. CRAIN. Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to interrupt the gentl~ 

man ri~ht there. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I yield to the ~entlema.n. 

Mr. CRAIN. I wish to dispute his last statement. I made no effort 

to strike out a part of the bill for the purpose of defeating the bill. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I will modify my expression in that respect; but 

say that that would be the logical effect of his proposition. 

Mr. CRAIN. That may be. I expect to vote for the bill; but I 

did not want even to vote for the suppression of immorality in an illegal way. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Inasmuch as this bill has passed the inspection of 

the Attorney-General, of the Post-Office Department, and of the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads of the House and the Senate, 

I think it is better for us to pass it as it is than to enter upon an un- known sea upon this question. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of tbe gentleman has expired. 

Debate upon the pending amendmen~ is exhausted, and the question recurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. ROGERS. I desire to inquire whether I am at liberty to offer an additional amendment at this time. 

The SPEAKER pro tenipore. There are two amendments pending. 

Mr. ROGERS. What are they, Mr. Speaker? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment 

of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, upon which debate has been exhausted. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

In p:i.ge 4, in lines 29 and 30, strike out the word "acknowledgment 11 and in- sert in lieu thereof the words "pr-irna facie evidence." 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. When these amendments are disposed 

of, further amendment will be in order. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to be heard, if I can, at this particular point, 

and I would like to have five minutes for further discussion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate, by order of the House, has 

been limited upon these two amendments. 

Mr. ROGERS. I was present, but did not so understand. 

Mr. HA YES. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 

Arkansas be allowed five minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. I ask unanimous consent that I may occupy five 

minutes, as I have not occupied any time on this question. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The. gentleman from Arkansas asks 

unanimous consent thathe be allowed to debate theseaniendments for 

five minutes. Is there objection? 

Mr. HILL. I would suggest that it be made ten minutes. l would 

like to be heard on the same proposition. 

The SPEAKER p1·0 tempore. The gentleman from Illinois asks that 

it be made ten minutes, five minutes to be controlled by the gentle- man from Arkansas [Ur. ROGERS] and five minutes by the gentleman 

from Illinois [Mr. HILL]. Is there objection to the request? The 

Chair hears none. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor for a double purpose. 

First, I want to combat the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois 

who last occupied the floor [Mr. HOPKINS], that because a bill has 

originated in aDepartmentweoughtto be concluded.from changing it. 

I give it as the result of some seven years' experience here that legislation prepared in a Department is, as a rule, more imperfect in its ver- biage than tb.:"\t which originates anywhere else. The reason is this: 

The responsibility for legislation rests with Congress, and when you send 

down to a Department for the preparation of a bill they undertake to 

put their ideas into it, but they give little or no attention to the language they use. Very frequently. indeed, the preparation of one of these 

billsin a Department is devolved upon some clerk who, perhaps, is not 

the equal in legal attainments of nine-tenths of the members on this 

floor. 

It is said also that this bill has passed the scrutiny of the AttorneyGeneral. I suppose it has passed his scrutiny upon the sole question 

of its constitutionality, but nobody is attacking its constitutionality 

l..tere. The Attorney-General did not dranght this bill, and he probably 

did not critically examine it with the view of perfecting or maturing 

its language. Therefore, '.r think these two points are matters that 

ought not to be dragged in here for the prevention of the ma"turing of 

this measure or any other. 

In view of the remark of the gentleμian from Connecticut a moment 

ago, I will preface what I have to say farther by the statement that, so far as I am concerned, within the limits of constitutional power 

there is no more persistent or more uncompromising enemy of the 

~ 

'· 

'. 

" -

.-
.. 

-. 

,c 

'-•' ' 

I . ._·. 

8708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·,. 

AUGUST 16, 

Louisiana. lottery than I am. I will do all that I can within the Constitution for the suppression of it; but when the proposition is to travel 

beyond the Constitution, then, of course, I stop. 

Now, having said this much by way of placing myself correctly before the House, I want to add that I concur fully in the i·emarks of the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BUCKALEW] with reference to the 

language of the b ill. I venture the assertion now that no gentleman on this floor can rise in his place and point to any statute, State or Federal, in this Government where the act of a third party attributing some course of conduct to another is made an acknowledgment by that 

other of the commission of the act attributed to him. In other words, 

I deny that they can point to any statute by which I am bound uy 

what somebody else has said about me to the extent that I am to be 

held to have acknowledged the truth of his allegations. No such statute and no such case can be found. But the courts over and over and over again have said, where the legislatord have undertaken to prescribe what shall be conclusive evidence of a given matter of fuct, that 

they will construe that language to mean that it shall be simply prima 

facie evidence, because to say that a thing is conclusive evidence is to 

deny to the opposite party his day in court. 

Such decisions have been made again and again with reference to tax 

titles, where certain acts of the Legislature have been cited as con- clusive in favor of the person claiming under the tax title, and the 

courts have said: "No; ifthe man paid his taxes he can show it, and 

you can not preclude him from showing that he paid them, and if J?.e 

did pay them everything that took place after that was wrong and erroneous in law and can not be upheld." By this bill you enable one man to make another his agent by simply announcing that he is bis 

agent; and yon make that announcement an acknowledgment of the 

agency on the part of the man who is so designated; and then you go 

on to provide that he can overturn this established fact by disavowing it. 

Now, that is not the right sort of language to use in a statute. When 

you provide in a statute that a thing is prima facie evidence for all 

legal purposes, that is conclusive evidence until it is overthrown; but we ought not to go further than to say that certain facts shall be presumptive or prima facie evidence, for that is sufficient evidence to au- thorize a judgment unless it is overturned. Whatever is prim.a f acie 

evidence is conclusive evidence in the absence of proof to the conkary 

and will sustain a judgment. 

Now, by striking out these words, "an acknowledgment," and sub- stituting in lieu thereof the words "presumptive evidence," you put 

your bill in technical legal language. Then, to get rid of the restriction upon the Postmaster-General which the gentleman from Georgia 

(Mr. BLOUNT] complains of, you can add the other amendment and 

say, ''But the Postmaster-General shall not be precluded from a.scer- taining the existence of such agency in any other way satisfactory to 

him." Thus you leave the whole field open for bis investigation, and 

when he ascertains the fact, whether bytheadvertisementof the agency or by affidavit or by any other means that is satisfactory to his mind, 

he has the r!ght to exercise all the powers that yon confer by the terms 

of this bill. 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the strongest law that this 

House can frame for the suppression of lotteries, not only the Louisiana 

lottery, but any other lottery now in existence or that may be hereafter 

put in operation; but there are one or two of the provisions of this bill 

whlch I do not favor. One of them is that which we are now discussing. 

It places the reputation and the business of one man in the control and 

keeping of another, and there is a similar provision found at the end 

of section 4041, relating to remittances by postal money-orders. 

Both these provisions are, in substance, that if the managers or operators of a lottery or of any similar confidence game or scheme in this 

country shall publish me, or you, or any other man as their agent, such 

publication shall be conclusive evidence of such agency; and the bill 

makes no provision for the alleged agent getting rid of that conclusive 

presumption. There is nothing in this bill which authorizes the man 

who is advertised as the agent of a lottery to go to the Post-Office Department and say and prove that he is not such agent and thus to be 

restored to his rights. According to this bill the old doctrine is re- versed of ''once a christhm, al ways a christian. '' In other words, the mere fact of the publication raises a con cl usi ve presumption against him, 

and I think that no such rule ought to obtain. I think this section 

ought to be amended, and that section 4041 ought to be amended so as to make the advertisement of a man as an agent simply prima f acie evidence that he is the agent of the party who advertises him a.s such. 

That is going far enough. Even that for a time place5the business and 

the reputation of a man in the hands of the lottery company, and I 

think we ought not to go further than that, even for the purpose of suppressing lotteries in the United States. 

In sup1nessing this gigantic evil let us not, in our zeal, forever blast 

the busmess and reputation of the citizen. Even the greatest criminal 

is not condemned unheard ancl without opportunity for defense ; yet 

this bill says, in substance, tha.t that may be done. Thlnk of it for a moment. A lottery company, the Louisiana lottery for example, ad-

,·ertises a national bank in Maine or in Illinois as its agent for the sale 

of its tickets or the forwarding of moneys in payment for lottiery tickets. 

This may certainly be done without either the knowledge or consent 

of the bank or of any of its authorized agents, and yet thls bill makes 

such an advertisement, in some remote and unknown paper, an ac- knowledgment by the bank of such agency . More than that, this so-called acknowledgment is made absolutely 

conclusive on the bank. No means are provided by this bill by which 

such supposed agency can be disproved or disaffirmed; on the contrary, 

acting upon the strength of such an advertisement alone, the Postmaster-General is authorized to withhold all registered letters and moneyorders of the bank from deli very through the mails. This might prove 

absolutely ruinous, not only to such banks, but to private individuals as well. In the name of law and justice we are asked to perpetrate a great injustice. E>en a thief should not be condemned unheard; yet 

here we are asked to condemn, not one man, but many perhaps, ou the 

mere say so of another. This ought not to, and I sincerely hope will not, 

be done. 

The objection is easily remedied. Make the advertisement pri11ur. 

facie, and not conclusive, and the objection is obviated. Then a really 

innocent party will be permitted to prove his innocence, that he is not 

the agent of the lottery company, and thns escape the penalties of the 

law. It will not do to say that this bill has been approved by the PostOffice Department and therefore must be right. We are the lawmakers, and we can not and should not evade or shift the responsibility. Let ue make the bill right as we see it, and then pass it. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I renew the suggestion I made awhile ae;o. If it 

will be agreeable to the gentlemen who have offered these two amendments to withdraw the first amendment, we will accept that offered 

by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCKALEW], to change the 

word ''acknowledgment" to ''prima facie evidence.'' I make this suggestion with the view of expediting action on the bill. 

Several MEMBERS. Regular order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PERKINS). The question is on the 

amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BUCKALEW]. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I desire to ofter an amendment. to that amendment, 

and I submit the proposition is in order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo-re. The Chair is informed that an amendment was first offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. CRAIN], to 

wbich the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BucKALll:W] offered an 3mendment. In the present parliamentary condition of the question, no further amendment is in oraer. A vote will now be taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

The amendment of Mr. BUCKALEW "Was read, as follows: 

Strike out the words " an acknowledgment," in lines !!9 and 30, of section 2, 

and insert "pr ma facie evidence." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. CRAIN. I now withdraw my amendment. 

Mr. BLOUN'r. I move to amend by adding to section 2 the following: 

Cut the Postmaster-General shell not be precluded from ascertaining the ex- istence of such agency in any other way satisfactory to himself. 

The SPEAKER pro ieinpore. The question is on the amendment 

just offered by the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. BLOUNT]. 

Mr. HOPKINS. We have no objection to that. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (having put the question). The ayes seem to have it. 

!fr. CULBERSON, of Texas. Let us have a divi ion on that proposition. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I will modify my amendment by inserting, before 

the word "way," the word "legal;" so as to read, "in any other 

legal way." I do this to meet a suggestion which is made tbati the 

amendment as originally offered might allow the Postmaster-General 

to open letters. 

The question being taken on the amendment of M:r. BLOUNT as modified, it was agreed to; there being-ayes 46, noes 19. 

Mr. HA !:"ES. I desire to ofter an amendment. 

The Clerk read as foUows: 

Strike out all of section 1, after the word" punished," in line 34, page 2. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, the provision which this amendment 

proposes to strike out allows anybody who sends through the mail anything concerning a lottery-an advertisement, a list of drawings: or 

anything of that kind-to be punished either at the place where the 

publication is mailed or at the place where delivery is made. I will 

ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HOPKINS] whether he desires to 

discuss this proposition or to make any arrangement as to the time to 

be occupied. 

Several MIDIBERS. Let us vote. 

Mr. HA YES. I do not desire to take a vote at once. I wish to dis- cuss this question. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Supposewediscuss itforfi.ve minutesoneach side. 

Ur. HAYES. I wish to occupy about ten minutes. I do not know 

whether any other gentleman on this side wants any time or not. l\fr. HOPKL.~S. Suppose we agree upon fifteen minutes on each 

side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HoPKI Ts] asks unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be lim-
- ·. ... ,/ 

.\ . .; \ 

...-. 

1890. i CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. 8709 

ited to fifteen minutes on each side. Is there objection? The Chair 

beam none. Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, the provision which this amendment 

proposes to strike out appears to me the most vicious provision in the 

bill. Under it any one who violates the provisious of this bill in relation to the sending of a list of drawings or the advertisement of a lot. 

tery may be prosecuted anywhere in the United States to which such 

matter may be sent. Now, this is not as innocent a provision as it 

seems to be. It might cover the 'question of a drawing at a church 

fair. Again, in the State of Iowa, in the case of a tie vote for a public 

office, the selection of the officer is determined by lot, the same language that this bill uses; and a person in that State who might send 

out an announcement of the result of such a drawing by lot for the determination of the choice of a public officer might be amenable to prosecution under the provisions of this bill, might be prosecuted not only 

in the State of Iowa, but in any State or jurisdiction in the United 

States to which such p.iper might he sent. 

Now, I say any such provision is fraught with danger and mi~bt 

become an instrument of tyranny. The provision ought not to be in 

the bill; there is no necessity for it. It is as bad as one of the grievances 

for which the Declaration of Independence arraigned the King of Great 

Britain: that he had transported our people across the seas to be tried 

for pretended offenses. In fact, this provision invites more trouble than 

ever, as a matterof fact, existed at or preceding the period of the Revolution as the ground of that statement in the Declaration. 

It is claimed that we have the right to enact snch a. provision because in the case of libel the party may be prosecuted in any jurisdiction to which the libelous matter is sent. But, sir, there are two or 

three reasons why that analogy fails. In the first place, if the law of 

libel allows a prosecution under circumstances involving danger of great 

abuse, it is no reason why we should here by express statute affirm 

any such doctrine. Besides, there is some question in the authorities 

as to such being the law of libel. I say it is enough to provide that a 

man may be indicted, tried, fined, and imprisoned; and there we 

should stop, leaving the general Jaw to determine where the prosecution may take place, not inserting in this bill a provision which may 

be used as an engine of tyranny. 

Now, Ur, Speaker, in regard to a libel, there again the analogy ceases, 

in that a. libel is a matter founded in malice. But no person on earth 

would pretend that a publication, legal at the place where it was 

mailed, and sent out of that jurisdiction, a publication without malice 

on the part of the person so sending, could be prosecuted in the other 

jurisdiction as a libel. Take the case of the lottery. In the State of 

Louisiana it is legal under the State laws. The advertisement and 

lists of drawings of the lottery is a legitimate business on the part of 

the paper publishing it so far as the local law is concerned. Consequently, I say we should deal with it as with any other matter aud 

simply provide the punishment, leaving the question of law to take 

its own course. That portion I have not in this amendment attempted 

to interfere with: 

Any person violating any of the provisions of this section may be proceeded 

against by information or indictment and tried and punished. 

That provision I do not propose to touch by the amendment. It is 

after that. I simply move to stiike out the remainder of the section, 

which provides that such proceeding may beeither in the district at which the unlawful publication was mailed or to which 

it is carried by mail for delivery according to the direction thereon, etc.-

which provision would authorize the trial of such a case anywhere in 

the United States, and which would result, or might result, in taking 

a man charged with a violation of this law for trial from one part of the 

cotmtry to what would be to him the uttermost and remotest portion 

of the United States. 

I reserve the remainder of my time, if any. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I yield now to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 

GROSVENOR] for five minutes. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Speaker, the provisjon of the bill which 

the gentleman from Iowa proposes to strike out is practically all there 

is in the bill that will make it effective to crush out the organized 

criminality of the lottery schemes of the country. The question of 

fixing the venue at the place where the letter is written soliciting participation in crime or the place to which the letter goes for delivery is 

not a new question. 

In Ohio for many years our statute for the punishment of obtaining 

goods under false pretenses was in the same situation of doubt, the 

question being should the crime be complete in the county where the 

letter was written ordering the goods, or in the county to which it was 

addressed, or in the county to which the goods were sent? 

We have in Ohio the same provision that is insisted upon as a principle by the gentleman from Iowa [1\Ir. HA YES], that the indictment 

must be in the county where t.he crime is committed, but we have 

solved the problem and made the law efficient in Ohio by declaring by 

a legislative enactment that the crime shall be complete in either 

county or both counties. 

Thus we got rid of the complication of judicial opinions by legislative enactment. The law has been upheld and enforced, and crime of 

that character has substantially ceased~ 

.. 

The law which remedied that evil in Ohio is exactly on all fours in 

principle of constitutional law invaded by this enactment. 

Now, here, what do we propose in thependinglegisla.tion? We propose that the crime shall be a completed crime in the city of Monaco, 

New Orleans, or in the city of Washington, or any other city where 

crime has been made profitable by the deli very of the letters of the lottery company. Is there anything wrong about that? Is there any 

doubt that this is one of the most effective provisions of this statute? 

Surely not. 

Does the gentleman from Iowa, who is a lawyer, undertake to 

say that it is not as great a crime here in the District of Columbia to 

obtain a remittance by representations in a letter written and addressed at New Orleans and delivered here a-s if written and addressed 

here ? Does he claim that the crime is not as obnoxious to the whole 

spirit and genius of the criminal theory of the country as it is in New 

Orleans, where the letter is written? 

When it is possible in this enlightened age that the Legislature of a 

State should do as Louisiana has done we must look about us for a 

remedy. When the Legislature of a great State will submit to the 1 

people of the State a cool and deliberate proposition to organize gam- \ 

bling as a legalized system of robbery, to be made legal hy the constitution of the State for a period of twenty years to come, then it is the 

duty ofConJ};ress to look about for some remedy. 

What good would it do to go to New Orleans to prosecute a man indicted for crime under this law, if enacted? If the State will legalize 

such a procedure, what good would it do to go to a district of New 

Orleans to indict or prosecute? This conspiracy for crime will obtain 

the money ot the people in every ward of the city and of the other 

cities throughout the country. It will defraud the honest people of 

every township and every district and every city in the great, broad 

expanse of this country. Their conduct is a crime at the point where 

the representation and suggestion and solicitation is operative to bring 

out the money, and in that district the prosecution ought to be had. 

The man who undertakes to evade this law selects his own tribunal. 

There is no hardship upon him in that connection, no invasion of the 

principles of the Constitution. He selects Washington City as the place 

where he will victimize a helpless hired girl, a certain laborer, a certain 

gentleman, if you please, by a letter of temptation. He selects his 

own place for the commission of the crime. This location is the one 

in which he will commit the crime. 

Here is where the evidence insists the crime has been committed. 

Here, then, is the forum in which he ought to be tried. There is therefore no invasion of the constitutional right, and the grand jury of the 

District of Columbia ought to bring in an indictment for the offense; 

not for a crime committed in New Orleans, but for a crime committed 

in the District of Columbia. The grand jury indicts him and .makes 

prosecution possible because he has obtained money by false pretenses 

and criminality in the District of Columbia. 

No argument, Mr. Speaker, is necessary. I say to the members of 

this House that to sustain this motion to strike this part of the bill 

out will be to eliminate from the bill all thatis powerful in it. Leave 

it in and you have invaded no constitutional rights; you have invaded no precedent established by the general criminal laws of the 

United States. If the Louisiana Lottery Company see fit to be in· 

dieted and tried only in the State of Louisiana, let it confine its nefarious operations to that State alone. 

If it does not want to be indicted for obtaining money on a policy 

scheme in the District of Columbia let it keep its agent out of the District of Columbia. Let them cease their solicitation within the District of Columbia. If they do not want to be indicted in New York 

let them avoid that State and confine their criminality solely to the 

State they are polluting. There ought to be left in the bill this provision to make it powerful to crush this crime which is already a disgrace to one of the States of the Union, and is rapidly becoming a 

disgrace to the whole country. 

Mr. HAYES. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? 

l\Ir. GROSVENOR. Certainly. 

l\Ir. HA YES. I would like to say to him that the great trouble with 

this bill is that it is, as it perhaps necessarily must be, a general bill, 

while in reality it is aimed simply at the Louisiana lottery, and the 

trouble is that it puts in a dangerous provision in order to reach that 

particular institution. 

Ur. GROSVENOR. That is exactly the issue, Mr. Speaker. I deny 

that there is anything dangerous in this bill. It inveighs against crime; 

crime recugnized as crime by the civilization of the age; crime as offensive to public morals as crime can be made, and it is not a dangerous provision in the bill that makes it efficient to crush such an evil. 

If there is somebody in the District of Columbia who wants to send 

letters to the Louisiana lottery I would indict those people here or 

down there. I would strike at the crime wherever crime has invaded 

the rights of man and has attempted to carry on nefarious operations 

like.this. 

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I have to say simply this: It is amazing 

that upon the floor of the American Congress there can be found a proposition to lessen the effect of the blow that i~ sought to be aimed at a crime so great as this. There ought to be but two questions, is this •, 

I . 
.. _ 

.-

·-

·. 

.... 

.. 

8710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

provision constitutional and will it be effective? Both these questions are answered in the affirmative. Its severity ought not to be a. question in the minds of the American Congress. 

Louisiana may disgrace herself by legalizing lotteries within her 

borders; the American people will leave nothing undone that can justly 

be done to crush thecrimeand to save the Government from any suspicion of participation in it. I trnst the amendmentoftbe gentleman from 

Iowa will not prevail. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, t.be gentleman has just said that the 

question of its severity ought not to be taken into consideration, in fixing punishment, if the object is good, or words to that effect. Now, ibe 

whole history of legislation in regard to crime goes to show that the 

severity of its punishment has no tendency to stop the crime; in other 

words, that the reduction of too great a penalty or of too severe a law 

· for punishment has always eventuat-ed in a lessening of the crime. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Would it be possible under this bill, if you 

should strike out this section, to punish any one except at the place 

the letter was sent from? 

Mr. HAYES. Now, in regard to that, I say, in analogy to the law 

oflibel, that it is barely possible that these people would be subject to 

indictment and punishment in the jurisdiction where they sent it, but 

I do not believe that we ought to affirmatively put it there. If the law 

puts it there, then I have nothing to say. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Would it not be better to settle that question 

definitely now? 

Mr. HAYES. Then I would settle it the other way, for I never 

would open the door to any such tyranny or oppression as this may be 

used to accomplish. 

M.r. KERR, of Iowa. If it should be settled the other way, would 

it not then follow that there could be no punishment except at the 

place the matter was sent from? 

Mr. HAYES. My colleague falls into the same error that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR] does in arguing this matter. He 

assume.a that this is aimed only at the Louisiana lottery--

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Any lottery. 

Mr. HA YES. Aimed at the Louisiana lottery, an institution that 

bas no friends here and that anybody is willing to see punished; but 

thi.a is a general law. 

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. It would also apply to church fairs, if they 

had a lottery attached to them. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes; and if some paper in your district should innocently publish anything about the matter they might be punished. 

Mr. KERR. of Iowa. Yes; and they ought to suffer for it, too, if 

they published it. 

Mr; HOPKINS. Does not my friend know that the courts of New 

York have decided that such a clause is constitutional? 

Mr. HA YES. I am not talking about its constitutionality; I am 

talkingaboutits propriety. I am not denying theconstitutionalityofit. 

Mr. HOPKINS. The court of appeals of New York bas held that 

it was good law, and other courts have held the same thing, and there 

is no reason why we should not adopt the same provision. 

Mr. HA YES. The gentleman must not misunderstand. I _am not 

denying the constitutionality of it, but I am questioning the propriety 

of it. In this connection, as I have not had time before this to file a. minority report and to have it printed, I desire to ask unanimous consent that I may publish it in the RECORD as a part of the statement 

that I ma.de. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HAYES], which the Clerk 

will read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Strike out in section 1 the following: · "Either in the district at which the unlawful publication was mailed or to which it is carried by mail for delivery according to the direction thereon, or at which it is caused to be deliy-ered by mail to tb.e person to whom it is addressed." 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. CALDWELL. l\Ir, Speaker, the mail service of our country 

should not be used as the agent of vice and criminality. 

Mr. CRAIN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman discussing any amendment? I understand that in regard to this matter we ought to be permitted to offer amendments. There is no amendment pending before 

the House now. 

.Mr. CALDWELL. The bill is pending. 

J,\,lr. KERR, of Iowa. There is another amendment which ought to 

be made in order to harmonize the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The present occupant of the chair 

does not know what understanding there may be among members con- cerning amendments that may be offered, but he understood that the 

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. CALDWELL], who is a member of the ·com· mittee, desired to be recognized, and the Chair recognized him. I 

think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. CRAIN] will be permitted to 

o1Ier any amendment that he may have. 

Mr. CRAIN. How much time does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 

CALDWELL] want? 

Mr. CALDWELL. Ten minutes. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio will proceed. 

Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Speaker, the mail service of our country 

should not be used as the agent of vice and criminality or in any way 

be an accomplice of organized robbery. Lotteries are condtmned as swindling and demoralizing agencies, as skin games of the most corrupting order, by the civilization of this age, and are pxohibited and 

made a crime in thirty-nine of the States of this Union. In only one 

is this swindling pestilence legalized. In twenty of the States it is a crime to advertise lotteries or lottery tickets. Despite the laws and 

police power of these States the mail-sacks of our Government are carrying the advertisements and tickets of these monstrous robbing organizations into every village, town, and city in this land. 

Lotteries and schemes of chance are legalized in Louisiana., advertisements oflotteries are made-lawful by her laws; ergo, argues the lottery defender, you have no right to deprive the newspapers of that State 

containing lottery advertisements the use of the mail, because these advertisements are legitimate under the constitution and laws of the 

State. As well argue that if under the laws of a State it be lawful to 

advertise obscene and lascivious literature, destructive of morals and degrading and debauching in influence, the Congress of the United States 

would have no authority to prohibit the transmission in the mails of 

newspapers containing such advertisements. 

There seems to be ,f!reat uneasiness in some quarters least the press 

be oppressed and its rights curtailed. If its rights and privileges were 

being threatened the press of the country would not be slow to speak 

in its own defense. The fact is, 1\fr. Speaker, that "the press, the 

mightiest agent for weal or woe in existence," with the exception <>f 

those newspapers published under the shadow of these organized robbing concernsHave t.he people's-right maintained, Una wed by influence and unbribed by gain, 

The great and powerful press of this country regardless of politics 

have been and are now united in their opposition to these lotteries. 

There has been no complaint or cry of alarm from any of our powerful newspapers against this proposed legislation; on the contrary, they 

are a unit in its support. It has, ''like the demigods of old, with 

brazen clubs uplifted, attacked this moral leper, crushing with relentless force the monster's hydra heads." 

For many years, Ur. Speaker, all lotteries and circulars concerning 

lotteries and gift enterprises have been made unmailable matter under 

the laws of the United States, and the Postmaster-General has for many 

years been authorized by law to return to the writers thereof, under 

such regulations as he might prescribe and uponsatisfactory evidence, 

all registered letters directed to persons carrying on lotteries and other 

fraudulent schemes of chance and to forbid the payment by any postmaster of any postal moTiey-order and to provide for the return thereof 

to the remitter of the same named in such money-order; and postmastexs have been forbidden by law to act as agents in any way for 

lotteries. 

The manifest purpose of Con!!ress was to make all lottery matter 

contraband and to entirely deprive them the use of the mails to promote any such fraudulent enterprise. Experience ba'3 demonstrated 

that existing legislation has not served the purpose for which it was 

intended, and the intention of Congress has been persistently thwarted 

and the law evaded by those who are engaged in these unlawful pursuits, resorting to every trick and evasion that ingenuity quickened 

by their greed for unlawful gain could suggest. 

The Postmaster-General has faithfully endeavored to enforce the 

law, but has been unwittingly compelled by its defects to permit the 

great Department of which be is the chief, and which more than any 

other Department of the Government is the people's Department, to 

be the instrument through which they are defrauded by an organized 

system of robbery. The necessity of better considered and more perfect legislation has long been recognized by the Department and has 

quickened public sentiment into a demand upon this Congress which can not be disregarded. 

This bill has been prepared upon foll consultation with the Postmaster-General and the law officers of his Department and approved 

by the Attorney-General, and adds to existing law the following essential provisions. The list of articles pertaining to lotteries and 

games of chance which are prohibited from being carried in the mails 

is enlarged so as to embrace, as far as human lanp;uage can do so, every· 

thing connected with any such enterprise, including newspapers, pamphlets, and other publications containing advertisements thereof under 

penalty as in existing law. 

The bill contains an important provision as to the jurisdiction for 

the trying and punishing of pen>ons violating this provision, so that 

the offender may be tried and punished either in the district in which 

the unlawful publication was mailed or to which it is carried by mail 

for delivery, according to the direction thereon, or at which it is caused 

to be delivered by mail to the person to whom it is addressed. In this 

way the jurisdiction for the trial and punishment of offenders is widely 

• I 
...... ..... -: .z 

.... .. -" ", .· 

1890. .· CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8711· 

extended, and will make punishment more certain and render offenses 

against the law less frequent. 

Under existing law an offender could be punished at the place of 

mailing and for knowingly depositing the prohibited matter in the 

mail. The ingenuity of the lottery company found very little difficulty in evading the provisions of this law. Under the present law 

the Postmaster-General is authorized to have returned to the writera 

such registered letters only as are directed to persons carrying on lotteries. This statute was easily evaded by having such letters addressed 

to other individuals, banks, and corporations. The present bill enlarges the power of the Postmaster-General so as to embrace any agent or representative of such lottery company, whether individual, firm, 

bank, corporation, or association of any kind, so as to prevent an eva- sion of the law. 

The sanctity of the mails and primte correspondence is carefully 

guarded by prohibiting any postmaster or other person opening any 

letter not addressed to himself, thereby preserving the sanctity of the 

seal. The power of the Postmaster-General to refuse the payment of 

money-orders is likewise limited in the present law to persons engaged 

in carrying on lotteries. Conviction under this section was avoided 

by having them direct:!d to other persons, banks, etc. The present bill 

enlarges his power so as to embrace all agents and representatives of 

lotteries, whether they be individuals, firms, corporations, or associations; but this provision does not authorize any person to open any 

letter not addressed to himself. 

It is believed by the Postmaster-General and the law officers of his 

Department that the amendments proposed in the bill will enable the 

Department to carry on t the intention of Congress and the policy of the 

Jaw without infringing or violating any private right, and that hereafter this great Department shall not be prostituted tothe purposes 

of fraud and crime, but shall be the means of widely extended social 

intercourse among our people, of the diffusion of intelligence and the 

means of carrying on the great business and commercial enterprises of our great nation. 

Let us then, my countrymen, place our shoulders to the wheel and 

pass this bill giving the offi<:ers of the Government the authority and 

power to deprive this hydra-headed monster the use of our mails- this 

forourcountry's honor, the good of the service, and the welfare of our people, thus removing from the great business and social department 

of our Government every imputation of dishonor. [Applause.] 

Mr. CRAIN. I have an amendment at the Clerk's desk that I desire to have a vote on. The amendment that I offer is to section 3. 

I offer the amendment. The amendment is to conform this language 

to the language of the other section. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

In section 2, strike out the word" acknowledgment," in line 25, and insert the 

words "prima faci.e evidence." 

The amendment was agreed to. ~Ir. CRAIN. I now yield my time to the gentleman from Louisiana 

[Mr. WILKINSON]. 

:Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. Speaker, I feel little disposed to trespass at 

this late hour npon the time of the House. The question under discussion, however, is one of such importance to the State which I have the 

honor in part to represent, the restrictions imposed by this bill affect so vitally an institution which claims (I regretto say) and is known by the name of that State that I trust this Honse will bear with me while I go 

with some detail into this subject and make such statement (as briefly 

as I can) as my time and your patience will permit. In doing this 

I wish it to be distinctly understood that I have no word to &"Y in defense of that powerful private corporation known as the LouU!iana lottery. 

The institutions, the industries, the good name of Louisiana have 

ever had, with fellow-members from other States, before committees, 

and on this floor, the willing and earnest efforts of my colleagues and 

myself in their behalf. But no voice of any L01.tlsiana Representative 

will be heard to-day in support of the institution whose privileges this 

bill so largely curtails. 

Who can justify or defend it? 

It takes from the- many to benefit the few. It reaps its amplest 

harvests from among the poor. It swallows in its capacious maw the 

savings of honest toil. It drains sums, small in amount, but tremendous in the aggregate, from out the avenues of trade. The retail 

dealer, the honest shopkeeper, in New Orleans especially, is the loser 

and wonders why the times are dull and money is so scarce. What 

wonder this is so when by its own avowal with every ticket sold and 

every prize paid out it only gives back a little more than 50 cents for 

every dollar that it receives? It is an adept in the tempter's art. 

Without the aid of temptation, the author and founder of so much 

crime, its occupation would be gone. Those intrnsted by others with 

sums of money, large or small, are the easiest victims of its allurements. To many a home once happy its wiles have brought disgrace 

ancl desolation untold. 

This corporation, which by its daily drawings tempts to the taking 

of 23 cent.s from -the daily market money, bas a revenue many times ~eater than that received in taxation by the State government of 

Louisiana.. 

,_ 

" . 

Is it any wonder that such an institution, with such wealth and 

power, with it8 very exi::itence sometimes dependent on the exercise of 

political control, should be a constant menace to good government and 

political liberty in Louisiana? And this institution, its calling outlawed by almost every State in the Union, masquerades under the garb 

of a disinterested dbarity and a magnificent philanthropy! 

Harsh things, Mr. Speaker, have been said about Louisiana in this 

debate, assertions that might lead members of this House and the public to believe that the spirit of liberty, menaced as it haa been, was crushed out in that State, and that corruption, engendered by this institution, now reigned supreme in it.s stead. 

I deny, sir, that since the intelligence and patriotism of Louisiana 

obtained control of that State corruption has at any time generally prevailed. But, sir, whatever of corruption this institution bas wrought. 

during its existence, whatever of evil can justly be charged at its door, 

the gentleman from Ohio [l\Ir. GROSVENOR] should remember that it was an inheritance of the days of Republican reconstruction twentytwo years ago. That dreadful period left us many a wrong to right, 

many a burden to endure. We have already righted many of these 

wrongs. We have repealed the infamous laws. We have curtailed the 

debt its plunder ma.de, and, with prosperous days and increasing population, the debt can be borne and liquidated without great hardship to 

our people. But one wrong, equal if not great-er than all the rest, our efforts up to now have failed to put an end to; the lottery company has 

survived them all, and through twenty-two years has clung to us with 

such tenacity as the Old Man of the Sea clung to Sin bad, in the Eastern 

tale. It could not be shaken off. 

A Democratic Legislature in 1879 repealed its charter. As a matter 

of compromise, the terms of which have been shamelessly Tiolated by 

the lottery company, it was allowed to retain its charter until December 31, 1893. One year after that by constitutional enactmenta.11 lotteries in Louisiana weie to be ever afterwards prohibited. The greater 

part ot our people looked of late years upon this question as one that 

would in a few years cease to exist. The wrong might be endured as its end was fast approaching and the constitutional limit of its exist .. ence would soon be reached. 

The leader of the lottery stated positively, according to common re- port, that he was not an applicant for a renewal of the lottery charter. 

But, as the time approached for this expiration, a change came over the 

determination of this leader and his friends. 

The golden stream was too abundant to its beneficiaries ~o allow its 

flow to be stopped. Into their coffers was pouring the wealth of kings. 

Their published schemes provided for a sale of ticket8 amounting yearly, 

if all were sold, to a gross sum greater in amount than that received in 

taxation by the State governments of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 

andlllinoi'3combined, greater than therevenuesfrom taxation oftwentyeightotherState governments that! could name, all put together. If its 

tickets were all sold the profits to the lottery company would amount to more than the total revenues from taxation of seventeen State governments that I could name. With half its tickets sold the profits would 

amount to the revenues from taxation of thirteen State governments 

that I could name, all put together. 

No wonder that the corporation was averse to having this sort of 

thing stopped. What to them was such a little matter as a State con- stitution? A renewal of this charter must be had and the State con- stitn.tion changed to suit. No wonder that they were willing to pay a large sum for a new franchise to last twenty-five years. Constantly 

increasing offers were made as a price for the new franchise, until a sum was :igreed on by them 3,000 per cent. greater than that paid for 

the present franchise ! 

At the very time the Legislature met, to whom the lottery company 

had applied for the submission of a constitutional amendment granting a new charter to be voted on by the people, the elem en ts themselves seemed to conspire to aid in having their request granted. A 

time of distress and danger came to thousands of our people living on the alluvial lands of the l\I ississippi River, a distress wrought by floods 

[looking in turn at different members] that camefrom your valleys in 

Western New.York, and your mountains in Pennsylvania, and your 

quickly drained fields in Ohio and Illinois, and from your snowy peaks 

in Colorado. These floods swept away in many places the barriers that 

had been buiUat so much cost and toil and ma.de many a family homeless. To relieve this distress the lottery company poured out money 

with lavish if ostentatious liberalitv. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. The time of the gentleman has ex- pired. 

Mr. CHEADLE. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may 

be permitted to proceed. 

TheSPEAKERpro tempore. Howlong? [After a pause]. Ifthere 

be no objection the gentleman will proceed. 

Mr. WILKINSON. This distress came at an opportune time for 

their purposes. It was a godsend to the lottery company. It was a good _time to be liberal. The good opinion of the people was needed 

and needed badly. It was a good time also to keep the right hand 

fully informed of what the left hand did and to spread abroad among 

the people the aeconnts of the noble benefactions of the lottery. 

And this was the opportunity which storm and desolation brought, 

-· 

. . ......... 

, ... -, 

.. 

' -. 

' r 

... .· 

. ,· 

.· -' .. 

I - -

.. ' 

·-
, 

.. 

-· , 

·,,,; "'·· 

8712 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

and this was what I meant when I said the very elements of nature 

came to their aid! 

The same institution that gave this relief promised, not only relief, 

but a prevention of this distress in the future, by giving magnificent sums to rebuild, enlarge, and maintain the lev~s, if their charter 

would only be renewed for twenty-five years! 

The distress was present, the danger was imminent on the one handrelief was ready for the present, security for the future on the other. 

And this relief, this security, was to be given without a. dollar in re- turn· "all this will I give" if only there be first submitted to, then 

adopted by the people, a constitutional amendment inserting "an 

article on l~vees, schools, charities, pensions, drainage, and lotteries." 

How philanthropic the objects of the amendment! How modest and 

unselfish that all these great public objects should be placed first and 

that about lotteries last of all on the list. 

And then the proposal, which I quote: 

SEc. 3. Be it fU1·iher enacted, That at the next general election all elect-Ors who desire to vote for said amendment shall write or print upon their ballots the words ••For the levees, schools, charities, pensions, drainage, and lotteries amendment " and all electors who desire to vote at said election against said amendment' shall write or print upon their ballots the words, "Against the levees, schools, charities, pension~. drainage, and lotteries amendment." 

This proposal to make it appear that those who are opposed to lotteries must also appear as voting "against levees, schools, and charities"-bow cunningly devised! Such ingenuity is clearly patentable. 

For a franchise giving this company many million dollars yearly 

they had paid and were paying the modest sum of $40,000 yearly. 

But for a renewal of that franchise for twenty-five years on its expiration they were willing to give each year the magnificent sum of $1, 250, - 000. It is a big sum, but, large as it is, it is but a small part of their 

yearly profits. They can well afford to pay it... They can better far 

afford to nay it than we can to accept it. It has not been accepted yet 

by the people of Louisiana. My solemn belief is that it never will be. 

If nothing were done by this Congress; if you were to continue to permit this Government to give that company the aid it now receives in 

the use of the mails; if Louisiana were left single-handed in this con- test· if the extension of its charter were to be two years hence settled 

by the vote of her people themselves, they would end its existence, for 

honor and manhood have not yet been crushed out in Louisiana, as some members of this Honse seem to believe. (Applause.] 

I was asked not long ago how it was that the lottery company had 

secured the votes of two-thirds of the Legislature to support the submission to the people of a constitutional amendment prolonging their 

charter for twenty-five years. I was asked whether t?e Legislature of 

Louisiana had been so corrupt and venal that two-thirds of the whole 

number in both houses had been bought by the lottery company. I 

say unhesitatingly, 1\Ir. Speaker, that such was not the case. I repel 

with indignation the unwarranted insinuation. 

I will endcaYor now to account for and explain that vote. In the 

:fimt place, Mr. Speaker, and I say it in no partisan spirit, ~one of the 

factors which contributed to the gene-ral result, every solitary member 

of the Republican party in both the house and the senate voted for the 

submission of the amendment. On the other hand. every vote cast 

against this amendment in both the house and the senat~ was cast by 

a Democrat. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Among the Democratic members who Yoted in favor of the amendment were men whom 

I have known and respected for years, as honorable and as worthy as any men upon this floor, who claimed it to be their duty, on a question so important, to have the judgment and the vote of the people whom they 

represented. I differed from them then, I differ now, but I find no word of bitterness for my tongue to uttei: against them or their action in this connection. 

There were others in that Legislature who thought that the benefits 

to be received were so great as to justify their favorable consideration 

of the submission of the proposed amendment. They thought that the 

le>ees could be rebuilt and made secure, education assisted; that the 

insane asylum, the charity hospital, the different orphan asylums, the 

maimed Confederate soldiers would secure a welcome aid; that taxes 

would be greatly lessened, distress relieved, and geAeral prosperity 

made to smile upon the State. The suffering that was before their 

eyes the relief that seemed so welcome and so near, hid, perhaps, as with a veil the calm contemplation of the issues involved. The eyes 

moistened at the sight Clf distress saw not perhaps the mailed hand of 

power that tendered the price. They saw that it would relieve distress, but saw not at.the same time that it might prove the price of a 

people's liberties for a quarter of a century to come. 

To such as these I impute no wrong. For such as these and their 

motives I set not up myself as a judge. 

But all were not like them. A few, and but a few, can give no satisfactory explanation of their action. Would that I could, in the case of that few, explain in a manner honorable to them the sudden con- versions (or perversions), the sudden changes from one side to the 

other, from open hostility to justification and support of the proposed 

measure! 

After passing the Legislature under such circumstances as I have allnded to, the governor of the State vetoed the act with its accompanying legislation. 

It is true that the advocates of the lottery claim that he bad no right to veto the act, but on this question there are diverse opinions. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman bas ex- pired. 

Mr. WILKINSON. I ask for a few minutes more. Mr. SPRINGER. I ask unanimous consent that ~he gentleman from 

Louisiana be allowed to proceed for ten minutes. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I move that he be allowed to extend his remarks 

in the RECORD. There are a good many other gentlemen who desire 

to speak. 

Mr. CUUMINGS. Oh, no; let him goon. Wearegettingvaluable 

information on this subject. 

Other MEMBERS. Go on; go on. 

Mr. PRICE. I trust that my colleague will be given time to finish 

his speech. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 

gentleman from Illinois that the gentleman from Louisiana be permitted to proceed for ten minutes longer? 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

M:r. WILKINSON. I thank the gentlemen for their comliesy. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment of which I have 

spoken may never go to the people of the State of Louisiana for them to 

vote on. And I base my opinion not alone on the right of the governor 

to veto the legislation in the form in which it passed both houses, but on the fact that the amendment it.self was not drawn as required by the 

constitution of the State. But if the proposed amendment goes to the 

people at the next State election, I am as confident as I am that I stand 

here this afternoon that it will be overwhelmingly defeated and that 

this hlot will be removed from the fair name of my State, and the ex- istence of this and every other lottery barred by our constitution for- ever. (Applause.] 

But that is some time off. The next State election is some time off. 

If the lottery company had been content to let their charter expire, as they had agreed to do, it is possible that I might not now be l'Lll advocate for pla.cing these restrictions upon them, although I consider the 

constitutional right to do so is clear. I might not now be occupying 

the position of making an argument to deny the ri~ht to nse the mails 

to a corporation chartered by the State whose constitution I have sworn to defend. This constitution itself recognizes the evil which 

it legalized, and ordained that the present lottery, and all others that 

might be in its borders, should at a stated time meet their final doom, 

and this constitution the lottery company by unhallowed means is and 

bas been using every effort to subvert. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, a few brief words about the objections urged 

against this bill. It is said that under it the Government of the United 

States goes still further toward centralization, thatit infringes upon certain rights belonging to the States. If I felt this to be true, in how- ever slight a degree, I should vote against this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, 

this whole business-the regulation of the mails-is clearly within our province. The passage of this bill exercises to a full extent the legitimate powers of Congress, 11\it does not usurp one jot or one whit of 

power beyond what belongs to it. Congress bas the right to say what 

shall be carried by mail and what shall not. It has frequently said 

what shall not. It has forbidden the use of the mails forthe sending of 

obscene books and pictures, and no one has questioned its right to do so. H has said vegetables or fruits shall not go in the mails, that poisons or glass, that animals dead or alive, "except queen bees" properly 

secured, that packages beyond a certain weight, shall not be transported 

in that manner. It has exercised the 1ight to limit or forbid the use of the mails on a number of occasions. The highest court in the land 

has ruled upon this point when Justice Field said in delivering the 

opinion of the court in the case of Ex parte Jackson (96 United States 

Supreme Court Reports):· 

The power possessed by Congress em braces the regulation of the en tire postal 

system of the country. The right to designate what shall be carried neces- sarily involves the right to determine what shall be excluded. 

It is said also that this is a blow at the freedom of the press, which, 

with freedom of speech, Congress is forbidden by the first amendment 

to the Constitution to make any abridgment of. 

Sir, if this is a blow against the freedom of the press it is such a blow aa the State of New York bas struck where lottery advertisements are forbidden in the newspapers. It is such a blow as other States in this 

Union have struck who have done likewise, but I have never yet beard 

it bas there beP.n considered a blow at the freedom of the press. The 

freedom of the press, as I understand it, consists in the right of the editors of the newspapers to freely express their views on public questions 

without let or hinderance by tho.se in authority. It means to forbid 

that censorship of the press once so prevalent in Enropean countries 

and still common in those countries, but this matter of advertisements seems to me to be a different affair. I hold in my band as good a paper, as well supplien with news, as interesting a paper to read, perhaps, as any in the United States, a paperwbichispublishedina State where 

lottery advertisements are forbidden and where no newspaper dares to 

print one, and it seems to thrive and prosper and makes no complaint 

that its rights have been interfered with. 

But I have heard it charged that this bill goes into the domain of 

. . 

--

\ 
.. · ' 

:. .... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8713 

( the police power of the States; that when the right was given to Congress by the States to establish post-offices and post-roads it was never 

dreamt that this power would be extended to regulate the morals of 

the people. . But is this the only reason-that lotteries are immoral-why this 

bill receives its support? Are there not many other reasons? 

Some of you gentlemen may support this bill solely on the ground 

of the suppression of immorality. Others may support the bill because 

the lotteries take money from their States and leave so little in return. 

I may support this bill, among many reasons, chiefly because a lottery 

corporation, intrenched behind a new lease of life, might have such 

power in a. State as almost to supersede the powers of the State itself, 

and be able to dictate at its will or from its necessities who shall pos- sess honors, emoluments, or liberty it.self. Rid of one era of slavery, I 

have no desire to see another. 

Mr. Speaker, the members of this House hav~ been so patient with me ood so generous in the repeated extensions of my time that for a few moments only will I further trespass upon their patience. This 

bill may be extreme, but "it is constitutional. It infringes upon no right the State or the citizen has under the Constitution. It provides 

for the breaking of no seal, and any postmaster or postal employe who 

does so, does so at bis peril. The express companies can still carry the 

tickets and tempting circulars which the bill bars out of the mails, 

but even this privilege may not last indefinitely. 

My position in this matter, Mr. Speaker, is taken deliberately. I 

shall vote for this bill as amended. [Applause.] 

Mr. Ev ANS rose.. 1\Ir. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I desire to have the amendment which 

I offered pending when the time arrives for a vote, and I ask the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. EVANS] to let it be submitted so that it 

may be pending. 

Mr. DINGLEY. Mr. Speaker, let the amendment be read, so that 

we may know what we a.re doing. 

Mr. CRAIN. Mr, Spe31ker, I also want to offer an amendment, in 

order to have it pentling when the time comes to vote. 

The SPEAKE~ pro ternpore. The Clerk will again report the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Add to section 3 the following words: 

"But the Postmaster-General shall not be precluded from ascertaining the 

existence of such agency in any other legal way." 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the amendment 

of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. CRAIN]. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

In line 25, of section 3, strike out the word "acknowledgment" and insert 

"primafacie evidence." 

Mr . .BURTON. That amendment has been already adopted. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. A similar amendment which was adopted 

related to section 2. 

Mr. BURTON. I presume, then, this amendment is design~d i-0 make· the third section correspond with the seeond. I suppose there can be 

no objection. 

Mr. CRAIN. The Clerk has not read theamendmenton which I desire the action of the House. The amendment just read was adopted, 

&SI understand, by unanimous consent. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo re. The Chair is informed that the amendment was not adopted. 

Mr. CRAIN. Then I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted now. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Ls there objection? 

Mr. GROSVENOR. Let it be considered as pending; I can not 

a.gree that it be adopted by unanimous consent. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [l\lr. GnosVENOR] objeeta. 

Mr. CRAIN. If the gentleman from Ohio understood this matter 

be would not object. The same amendment was adopted on motion 

of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Ur. BUCKALEW] to section two. 

This amendment simply makes section three conform to that. 

Mr. EV ANS obtained the floor. 

Mr. CRAIN. I would like to have the Clerk read my other amendment, that it may be considered as pending. 

Several MEMBERS. Regular order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is demanded. The 

gentleman from Tennessee [l\Ir. EVANS] will proceed. 

l\Ir. EV ANS. Mr. Speaker, the subject under consideration, House 

bill No. 11569, reported favorably by the Committee on Post-Offices and 

Post-Roads, being a substitute for House billsNos.177, 241, 242, 3321, 

and 8987, referred to that committee, on which I have the honor to 

serve, is one that demands from the members of this body the most 

carefal ~nd considerate attention. 

The bill before us proposes to so amend sections 3894, 3929, and 4041, 

Revised Statutes, as to prohibit the use of the mails for the purpose of 

in any way distributing advertisements or adverth!ing matter pertaining to lotteries, gift enterprises, or schemes to obtain money or property by games of chance; in fact, to prohibit the use of the mails for 

the purpose of carrying on a correspondence with any lottery or any 

lottery with the patrons thereof. 

This bill seeks to suppress that species of gambling which is carried on through the agency or instrumentality of lotteries. - Sections 3894, 

3929, and 4041 of the Revised Statutes refer only to "illegal" or 

"fraudulent" lotteries. It is not my purpose to discuss the constitutional questions involved, if there be any, but my confidence in the 

wisdom of the Supreme Court is such that I am quite satisfied to allow 

that body to deal with this question. I shall confine my remarks 

briefly to existing facts.. The Louisiana State Lottery claims that it is 

not an "illegal" lottery, as it exists under the constitution and laws 

of that State, and that it is not a "fraudulent" lottery or scheme devised and intended to deceive and defraud the public fo1· the purpose 

of obtaining money under false pretenses, and so far the Government 

has failed to successfully prosecute a case against this company, although it iq quite evident that Congress intended to confer upon the 

Postmaster-General authority to stamp out and suppress all lotteries, 

and each and every State, with the exception of Louisiana, bas co- operated with the Postmaster-General, and every State, aside from 

Louisiana, has suppressed this class of gambling so far as possible within 

its limits; and now comes up a demand, an appeal, that bas been 

ofttimes repeated, for protection by the National Government. 

The St9.tes in their sovereign capacity have tried to protect themselves 

and their citizens from this immoral monster by provisions in their re- spective constitutions and by legislative enactment, but the United 

States mails will not permit them to do so. The States prohibit by Jaw 

their own newspapers from advertising any lotteries or the drawings of 

any lotteries. The States have, in every way possible, endeavored to 

quarantine against this pestilence, and yet the United States persists in 

disregarding the wishes of the States, as expressed in their respective 

constitutions and laws, by delivering through ita mails advertisements 

for the sale of lottery tickets, into the State.s and into the homes of the 

people, thereby corrupting the youth and swindling and robbing the 

people. 

T.he Louisiana lottery has twelve regular drawings each year,-ten 

monthlies and two known as semi-annual. 

Each regular monthly drawing: 100,000 tickets, at $20 ________________________ ':.. ___ $2, 000, 000 

3,134 prizes---- --------------------------··---- 1, 054, 800 

Profit monthly ________ _-__________________ : _____ 945, 200 

Profits of ten regular drawings each year.-------------- 9, 452, 000 

Each semi-annual drawing: 

100,000 tickets, at $40 each________________________ 4, 000, 000 

3,134 prizes __ ----------- _______ --------________ 2, 109, 600 

Profit each semi-annual drawing_________________ 1, 890, 400 

Profits yearly on semi-annual drawings---------------- 3, 780, 800 , 

Profit on ten monthly drawings------------------------ 9, 452, 000 

Profit on two semi-annual drawings ____________ -·------- 3, 780, 800 

Total annual profits ______ ---------- _____ :. ______ 13, 232, 800 

This is the estimated clear profit of the company annually, as the 

daily drawingd held are expected to, and undoubtedly do, pay all the 

expenses of the company. 

The daily drawings held each day at 4 p. m. are even more pernicious in their effects than the regular lottery drawings. The mode of 

conducting these is, briefly, as follows: 

Seventy-eight numbers, from 1 to 78, are placed in a wheel, each 

number inclosed in a. tube. Out of this number thirteen a.re drawn by a blindfolded boy, and the numbers are entered on a blackboard in the 

order in which drawn. The tickets for this drawing are sold at 25 

cents each for one-fourth ticket, and the purchaser is permitted to se- lect and have entered upon the ticket when purchased any three of the 

numbers from 1 to78. If the first three numbers drawn from the wheel 

correspond with the three numbers on the ticket, and are drawn in 

the order in which they appear on the ticket, a prize of $6, 000 is paid 

(something that haa never yet happened in the history of the company 

and would not likely happen if conducted for the next hundred years}. Ii~ however, of the thirteen numbers drawn out of the wheel three of 

them happen to correspond with the three numbers on your ticket, a. prize of about $36 is given. By paying an extra 25 cents on a ticket 

you can put what is called a "gig and saddle·" on it, and then in the 

event that two of the numbers on your ticketcorrespond with any two 

of the thirteen numbers drawn from the wheel, a prize of $2.45 is paid. 

There are sundry other ways of betting on this scheme, but these are the most common because the most simple. 

By a mathematical calculation it is found that the chance to win a capital prize is one in 67,525, and when you win it you only get 

$4,275.40 for ~1, as against $15,000 for $1 in the monthly, with a cha.nee of 1 in 100, 000. 

'l'he chance to win a prize of $4.25 is 1in1,237. 

The chance to win $1.70is as 1to19. 

Take, for instance, the "washerwoman's gig "-4-11-44-the chance 

that these three; or any other three numbers, will, in any order, be the 

., 

... 

~ : . . 

,-
:. 

..,.. 

'· 

; 

... 

•· 

-,. 

... ·. 

8714 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

first three numbers out of the thirteen taken from the wheel. Five 

days in the week is the continuecl prod.act of the numbers 78, 77, 76, 

diviued by 6, which is 76,076, so that 1 in 76,076 is the chance t-0 win. 

In other words, if one should play this gig every day for 253 years, 

the mathematical chances are that it would come out once, and after 

spending $76,076 one would, if it did come, receive the munificent 

prize of $100. 

If you bet that any particular number will be one of the thirteen 

drawn, your chance t-0 win is 1 in 6, and if you do win you are paid 4 

for 1. 

Compare these figures with thos6 of the roulette table. Your chance 

to win there is 1 in 31; if you do win you are paid 27 for 1. The professional gambler, who is denounced by the law, indicted by grandj uries, 

and hunted by the police as a species of thief, is satisfied with a percentage in his favor of 12 per cent. This gigantic corporation turns its 

wheel daily for the unnumbered multitude who may bet at its game. 

The smallest percentage h permits itself to take is 22 per cent. On 

the most of its game its percentage is from 33 to 41 per cent., and on. 

part of its game incalculable. 

This iB the real skin-game annex to the Louisiana State Lottery, and 

poor servant girls, children, b-Oot-blacks, draymen, hack.men, in fact men of high and low- degree by the thousands, patronize this scheme. 

.A.gents are located at convenient places all over the city where their 

tickets are sold and at which places prizes are paid on presentation of 

winning tickets. One hundred and twenty agents, estimated average 

receipts of each from $50 to $60 per day. 

About $10,000 worth of postage-stamps and stamped envelopes are purchased monthly by the lottery company. Thia represents 500,000 

letters they mail monthly, or 6,000,000 annually, each one of which 

is a violation of law. 

In addition to thiB the lottery company secures cheap (especially 

sporting) newspapers to publish their advertisements and send out 

tons of them to all parts of the United States on pound rates as sample copies. 

Very recently the Spirit of the South, a cheap local sporting paper 

of limited circulation, sent out in one week 4,947 pounds of sample 

copies, representing about 50,000 copies of the paper. On examination 

it vras found that the paper, in addition to the regular advertisement, 

contained several columns of local advertisements of the lottery company. The postage paid upon this 2! tons of papers, representing 50,-

000 pieces of mail matter, is but $49.47. 

To send a lottery circular through the mails under existing statutes 

is unlawful, yet that circular in many cases is e.xactly the same as the 

advertisements contained in the newspapers. To send through the 

mails sealed circulars costs 2 cents per ounce. Newspapers and periodicals from :regular publishers cost but 1 cent per pound. 

To have mailed 50,000 circulars instead of the 50,000 copies of the 

Spirit of the South before alluded to, and which contained the same 

matter, would have cost $1,000 for postage, instead of $49.47. It is 

made not only lawful to publish the circulars in newspapers, but much 

cheaper. 

Encouraged by the success of the Louisiana lottery, foreign lottery 

' companies are now advertising in hundreds of the American papers and are building up quite a business, and establishing agencies in all the 

leading cities of this country. 

I find advertised in the Washington daily papers the Louisiana. State 

Lottery, Grand Lottery of Juarez (Mexico), Lottery of Mexican National Government, and I find there the name of that former distinguished soldier, diplomat, and statesman, John S. Mosby, as commissioner of the Juarez lottery. 

Your attention is invited to the fact that the great financial system 

of this nation, through its agents, four national banks of New Orleans, 

stands as sponsor or indorser of the Louisiana State Lottery. 

I find nothing in the act creating the national-banking system, defining the dutiesor prescribingthepowers of the same, that authorizes 

national banks, or in the course of business justifies them, to engage 

in any such copartnerships. 

I find, too, among the cards published in a New Orleans paper cer- tain national banks (one in the Lone Star State, another in the new- born State bearing the name of the Father of this Country) advertised 

as among those drawing prizes in the Louisiana State Lottery, July 

15, 1890. 

Is it possible that members of this great national-banking system, a financial system tha.t is the pride of the nation, should lend their names and credit to encourage and stimulate illegitimate schemes like 

lotteries for obtaining money? 

Is it surprising that Canada has secured such a large number of our bank presidents and cashiers? It becomes the nation's disgrace-its 

accredited agents, national banks, the custodians of the people's sav- ings, participatin~ in a scheme for obtaining money that is recognized 

by the intelligence of the world as illegitimate, illegal, fraudulent, 

and the most disgraceful species of gambling. 

A. CARD. 

1100,000.] NEW 0RLEA.NS, July 23, 1890. 

The undersigned certifies that he held for collection, for· account of Pacific 

National Bank, Tacoma, Wa.!!h., one·twentieth of ticket No.327M, single number, Class G, in the Louisiana State Lottery, which drew the second capital 

pri_ze of fl00,000, on Tuesday, July 15, 1890, and that the amount was promptly 

paid by a check on the New Orleans National Bank on presentation of the ticket at the office of the company. 

A. J. DRYSDALE, • Runner z.te-w Orleans Nationai Bank, New Orleans, La. 

$50,000.J A CARD. NEW ORLEANS, July 23, 1890. 

. The undersigned certifies that he held for collection, for account of First Na- tional Bank, 'Vaco, Tex., one-twentieth of ticket No. 26747, single number, 

Class G, in the Louisiana. State Lottery, which drew the third capital prize of 

$.50,000, on Tuesday, July 15, 1890, and that the amount wn.s promptly paid on presentation of the ticket at the offi.ce of the company. CHAS. SANTANA, 

Note Clerk Louisiana National Bank. 

EXHIBIT SHOWING CONSTITUTIONAL A.ND STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF TRD RE· SPECTIVE STATES RELATING TO LoTTERIES, AGENCIES FOR SAME, AND SALE 

OF TICKETS. 

ALABAMA. 

Constitutional proi:is ions. 

"The General Assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gill en- terprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift..enterprise tickets in any scheme in the nature of a. lottery in this State; and 

all acts or parts of acts heretofore -passed by the General Assembly of this State 

authorizing a. lottery or lotteries, and all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, are hereby a.voided." Adopted 1875. (Art. 4, sec. 26.) 

Statutory proi:isions. 

Any person who sets up or carries on a lottery, liable to a fine of not less than 

$100 nor more than ~.ooo. (Rev. Stat., 1876, sec. 4445.) Person who sells or acts as a.gent for the sale of lottery tickets, liable to a fine 

of not less than ~1,000 nor more than $2,000. (Rev. Stat., ~876, sec. 4446.) 

ARKANSAS. 

Constitutional provision. 

" The General A.ssem bly shall not authorize any lottery, c.nd shall prohibit the 

sale of lottery tickets." (Art. 5, sec. 41.) 

Statutory provi.sions. 

Any person keeping an office for the sale oflottery tickets, liable to a fine not less than $00 nor more than s.500, with costs of prosecution. (Sec. I, Session Laws of Arkansas, 18i4-'i5, p.159.) 

Any person selling lottery tickets, guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to a. fine of not less than $i0, nor more than Si)OO, and shall stand committed to jail until costs and fine pa.id. (Sec. 2, session laws of Arkansas, 1874-'75, p.159.) 

CALIFORNIA. 

Oonstittltionalprovision. 

"The Legisla.tw·e shall ha'\""e no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises 

for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale in this State of lottery or gift-enterprise tickets, or tickets in any seheme in the nature of a lottery." 

(Art. 14, sec. 26. Adopted, 1879.) 

Stalutor y prov is ions. 

Lottery defiried. (Rev. Stat., 13, p. 319.) 

Any person who sets up or draws a. lottery, guilty of a. misdemeanor. (Rev. 

Stat., 18i6, sec.1332.) 

Any person who sells or gives, or in any way transfers lottery tickets, guilty 

ofa misdemeanor. (Rev. Stat., 1876,sec. 13321.) 

Any person aiding or assisting a lottery, either by pr1nting, writing, advertising, publishing, or otherwise, guilty of a misdemeanor. (Rev. Stat., 1876,sec. 

13322.) 

Any person who sets up or keeps any office or other place for the sale or reg· istry of tickets, or who, by printmg, writing, or otherwise, advertises or pub· 

lishes the setting: up or opening or running of any such offices, is guilty of a. misdemeanor. (Rev. Stat., sec.133?...3.) 

Property offered for sale by means of lottery drawing forfeited. (Rev. Stat., sec.13.'~. 

Issuing of lott~ry tickets a. misdemeanor. (Rev. Stat., sec.13324.) 

Letting a building for lottery purposes a misdemeanor. (Rev. Stat., stlc. 

13326.) COLORADO. 

Constitutional provision. 

"The General AS&embly shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift en- terprises for auy purpose, 1md shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift-enterprise tickets in this State." (Art. 18, sec. 2.) 

Statutory provisions. 

Any p11rson engaging in or promoting a. lottery liable ton. fine not IP.SS than 

$100 or imprisonment in jail not less than thirty days. (Sec.1, acts of 1881, p. 178.} 

Any person who opens, carries on, or promotes lottery or other games of 

chance liable to a penalty of not less than ljilOO or imprisonment not less than 

sixty days. (Sec. 2, acts of 1881, p.178.) 

Any person advertising a. lottery liable to a. fine not exceeding 5100 or imprisonment in jail not less than sixty days, or both. (Sec. 3, Id.) 

Owner of newspaper who publishes any ad ·.·ertisement of a lottery liable to a fine of not less tban S.,000. (Scc.(? )-Icl.) 

Selling of tickets prohibited under penalty <' f fine not exceeding $100 or im• 

prisonment not exceeding sixty days, or bot11 . 

CONSECTICUT. 

Statutory provisions. 

Lotteries prohibited, and any person carrying on same liable to a fine of not leas 

than $20 nor more than $100, or imprisonment not more tha..n one year 01· less 

than sixty days. (Sec. 4, Rev. Stat., 1875, p. 6Hi.) 

Sale of lottery tickets prohibited under a penalty of not more than $300 nor less 

than $50, or imprisonment not less than three months nor more than one year. (Sec. 5, Icl.) Persons drawing a lottery liable to a fine of not more than S300 or imprisou- ment not more than ninety days, or both. 

DELAWARE. 

Statutory pr01Jision. 

All lotteries sa>e those authorized by State authority prohibited. (Rev. Slat. 

1874, 254, 255.) . FLORIDA. 

Co1utitutional pi·ovi.sion. 

"Lotteries are hereby prohibited in this State." (Art. 4, Sec. 20.) 

·, 
. ' --- '··.I 

·. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8715 

Statutory jJrovisions. 

Who·wer ad,·ertises any lottery ticket or any share in such ticket for sale by himself or another person, et-0. 1 shall for each offense be punished by fine not exceeding SJOO, (Sec,!, chap. 80, l\IcLean's Digest, p. 427.) 

Persons setting up lottery punishable by fine not exceeding $2,000. (Sec. I, 

McLenn'sDigest, p.404.) Persons leasing building for lottery purposes punishable by fine not exceed- ing $2.000. (Sec.2, Id.) Sale oflottery tickets prohibited uodera. peoaltyofnotexceeding$2,000. (Sec. 

2,Id.) GEORGIA. 

C-01uitilutional provision. 

All lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets are hereby prohibited, and this pro- hibition shall be enforced by penal laws. (Art. I, sec. 2, par. 14.) 

Statutory prOJ)isicms. 

Sale of lottery tickets prohibited under a penalty of not less than $100 nor more than -oo; second offense not exceeding 51,000 or imprisonment in county jail six months, or both. (Rev. Stat., 1882, sec. 4549.) 

Carrying on of lottery prohibited. (Rev. Stat., 1882, sec. 4549.) 

Turning oflottery wheel prohibited. (Rev. Stat., 4549.) Violation two preceding sections punished by fine not less than $500 nor more than SJ,000, or imprisonment not more than one year. (Rev. Stat., 4549, Id.) 

IDA.HO. 

(Constitutional provisions.) 

ILLINOIS. 

Constitutional prot:isions. 

"The General Assembly ~hall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift 

enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift-enterprise tickets in this State." (Art. 3, sec. 27.) 

Statutory provisions. 

Persons setting up or dispo ing of property by means of a lottery, liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. (Sec.180, Rev. Stat., 1880, p.383.) Person permitting a lottery to be carried on on his premises, liable to fine not exceeding $2,000. (Seo.181, Id.) Sale of lottery tickets prohibited, under penalty of not exceeding $2,000. 

(Sec.182, Id.) 

Lottery advertisement prohibited, under penalty not exceeding $100. (Sec. 183, Icl.) . Second offense, fine of $10:> and imprisonment not exceeding one year. (Sec. 

18.J,Jd.) All property drawn or offered as prize in lottery forfeited to State. (Sec. 

185, Icl.) 

Ccmstitutional pmvision. 

"N'l lottery shall be authorized nor shall the sale of lottery tickets be al- lowed." {Art. 15, sec. 8.) 

Statutory 2>ro-visions. 

Persons selling lottery ticket-a or acting as a.,,o-ent for lottery, subject to fine of not more than $500 nor less than $10. (Sec. 2077, Rev. Stat., 1881.) 

"\Vhoever writes, prints, advertises, or publishes in any way an account of any lottery," etc., punished by fine not exceeding $500 nor less than $10. 

IOWA. 

<',onstitutwnal pr<>vision. 

. "No lottery shall be authorized by this State, nor shall the sale of lottery tickets be allowed." (Art. 3, sec. 28.) 

Statuto1'y 2:n-ovision. 

Selling or advertising for sale lottery tickets punishable byimprisonment nol exceeding thirty days or fine not exceeding SlOO, or both. (.McClain's Stat., 

sec.4043.) KANSAS. 

Constitutional provision. 

"Lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets are forever prohibited." (Art.15, 

sec.3.) 

This Sta to has no statute. KENTUCKY. 

Statutory provisions. 

Any person setting up, promoting, or carrying on lottery liable to a fine of from S500 to $10,000. (Gen. Stat., chap. 29, sec. 1.) Artists may dispose of their pictures by chance or lot. (Sec. 2, Id.) Pe1·sons printing or vending lottery tickets subject" to fine of from SlOO to $1,000. tSec. 3, Id.) 

Persons permitting house to l>e used for lottery purposes liable to like penalty. 

(Sec. 4, Jd.) 

Advertising of lottery tickets prohibited under like penalty. (Sec. 5, Id.) Court of appeals has sust~ined prohibitory legislation. See l't1iller vs. Com., 13 Bush, 731; Com. vs. Bell, 13 Bush, 3-!5; Com. vs. City of Frankfort, 13 Bush, 185. LOCISIANA. 

Oonstituliona.Z provisions-Constitutional 1·ecognilion of lotteries. 

General Assembly authorized to grant lottery charters provided each charter pay $10,000 per annum to the State. "And provided furthe1·, That all charters shall cease and expire on the 1st de.y of January, 1895,from which time all lotteries are prohibited in this State." Charter of "Louisiana State Lottery" recognized as binding contract with State, provided company surrenders monopoly clause of its charter. (Const., 

1879, art. 167.) lIAI!l"'E. 

Statutor-y proi·isions. 

Every lottery scheme or device of chance probibit~d and declared a nui- sance-

".And whoever is concerned therein, directly or indirectly, by ma.king, ad- vertising, purchasing, receiving, selling, oftering for sale," etc., "any lottery• ticket or share therein, by printing, publishing, or circulating the same, or any handbill, advertisement, or notice thereof, or by knowingly suffering the same to be published in any newsp 1per or periodical under his charge, or any cover of paper attnched thereto, shall be puni<1hed by fine not less than $100 nor more . than .71,000." (Rev. Stat., ec. 3, p. 86.5.) 

Attorney-general may, by injunction, restrain lottery. (Sec. 4, Id.) All payments and securities for lotteries void, and may be recovered back. (Sec. 5, Id.) Provision of above statute made applicable tu all schemes of chance of every kind at fairs and public gatherings, whether for benefit of churches, benevolent institutions, or otherwise. (Sess. of 1877, chap. 176, p. 131.) 

llIARYLAND. 

Constitutional provisions. 

!fo lottery shall hereafter be authorized by the General Assembly. (Art. 3, sec. 26.) 

Statuto1·y protiisions. 

Dmwing of lottery and &ale of lottery tickets prohibited. (Sec.159, Rev. Code, 

p.818.) 

Penalty for violating above section, fine not less than $'200 nor more than $1,000, or imprisonment not less than three nor more than twelve months. (Sec. 161, Id.) 

In addition t-0 above penalty, person who g;h'es money for ticket may recover from person who sold same $50 for each ticket sold. (Sec. 162, Id.) Person keeping house for lottery purposes liable to penalty of $1,000. (Sec. 

163, Id.) 

Owner who permits hom~e to be used for sale of lottery tickets liable to pen- alty of $1,000. (Sec. 164, Id.) Persons bringing lottery tickets into State for sale liable to a penalty of $1,000. 

(Sec. 16.5, Id.) · ''If any person shall by printint;t", writing, or in any other way publish an ac- count of any lottery," etc., subject to a fine of $1,000, or imprisonment for sixty 

days. (Sec. 166, Id.) 

lnsurmg lottery tickets punishable by fine not less than $100 nor exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not less than three months or more than six months, or both. (Seo. 167, Id.) Contracts in airl ef lotteries T"oid. (Sec. 168, Id.) Second offense under preceding sections punished by imprisonment in penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years. (Sec. 169, Id.) 

Preceding sections apply to all lotteries, both in and out of State. (Sec. 170, Id.) Courts to give previous sections of statute liberal construction. (Sec.170, Id.) 

MAS.SACilUSETI'S. 

Stalutory provisions. 

Any person sel.ting up or promoting a lotterr, liable to a fine not exceeding 

S2,000. (Sec. 1, Pub. Stat., 1882, ch. 209, p. 1176.) Persons permitting a building to be used for lottery, punished by fine not ex• ceediug $2,000. (Sec. 2, Id.) 

Any person selling lottery tickets, subject to a fine not exceeding $2,000. (Sec. 

3,Id.) . Second offense violating above statute, in addition to fine, shall be imprisoned not exceeding one year. (Sec. 4. Id.) Ad•ertisement of tickets prohibited under a penalty not exceeding '100. (Sec. 

5,Id.) 

.Malting or vending fictitious lottery tickets, punished by imprisonment not exceeding three years. (Seo. 6, Id.) · 

Prizes in lotteries forfeited to St.ate. (Sec. 8, fd.) 

Aiding foreign lotteries, punished by fine not exceeding $2,000. (Sec. 9, Id.) 

Selling foreign lottery tickets, punished by fine not exceeding f!?,000. 

llIICHIGAN. 

Constitutional provisions. 

The Legislature shall not authorize any lottery nor permit the sale oflottery tickets. (A.rt. 4, sec. 27.) 

Statutory provisfons. 

Persons setting up or promoting Hable to a. fine not exceeding $2,000 or im- prisonment not exceeding one year. (Sec. 9331, Rowell's Ann. Stats., 1882, p. 2257.) 

Selling of tickets punished by fine not more than SJ,000 or imprisonment not more than one year. (Sec. 9332, Id.) Second offense punished by imprisonment in penitentiary not more than three years or county jail not more than one year. (Sec. 9333, Id.) 

Advertising of lottery tickets prohibited under penalty not exceeding $100. 

llIINNESOTA. 

Constitutional provision~. 

The Legislature shall never authori~e any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets. 

(Art. 4, sec. 31.) 

Statutory provisions. 

Persons who set up or promote a lottery liable to imprisonment in county jail not more than six nor lesR than one month. (Sec. 1, ch. 93, Rev. Sta.ts. 1878, p. 914.) 

Selling of lottery tickets punished by fine not exceeding $500 nor less than $100. (Sec. 2, Id.) Advertisement of tickets punished by fine not exceeding $100. 

MISSOURI. 

Stafatorv p1·ovisions. 

Lotteries prohibited, and persons carrying on same guilty of misdemeanor. (Sec.1561, Rev. Stat.1879, p. 272.) Persons selling tickets or advertising lotteries liable to a. fine not exceeding Sl,000. (Sec.1567, Id.) llUSSIBSIPPL 

Constitutional provision. 

"The Legislature shall never authorize any lottery, nor shall the sale of any lottery tickets be allowed, nor shall any lottery heretofore authorized be per- mitted to be drawn or tickets therein to be sold." (A.rt. 2, sec. 15.) 

Statutory provision. 

Any person who sells or acts as agent for lottery tickets or keeps a place for sale of tickets, liable to a. fine not exceeding $500andimprisonment not exceed- ing one year. (Rev. Stat. 1880, sec. 2879, p. 774..) 

MONTANA. 

Constitutional provision. 

"The Legislative Assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift 

enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift-enterprise tickets in the State." (Art. 19, sec. 2.) 

NEBRASKA. 

Constitutional provision. 

"The Legislature shall not authorize any games of chance, lottery, or &"ift en- terprise, under any pret-ense or for any purpose whatever." (Art. 4, sec. 21.) 

Statutory provuions. 

Person who sets or promotes a. lottery liable to a fine of not exceeding $500. 

(Sec. 140 Annotated Stats. 1881, p. 36.) 

Sale of tickets, or acting as agent for lottery, punished by fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonmeut not exceeding six months. (Sec. 141, Id.) 

Adve-rtising of lottery tickets prohjbited under a penalty of not exceeding $100. (Sec. 142, Id.} 

..· ... ~ 

.· 

- .. :; .. 

.· .. 

.:. 
. ( 

... ' 

\ 

;- \ 

. , 

. ~· 

·- '·· 

'• 

8716 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

NEVADA. 

Constitutional provi~ion. 

"No lottery shall be authorized by this State, nor shall the sale of lottery tickets be allowed." {Art. 4, sec. 24.) 

Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, prohibited under a penalty not ex- ceeding $.500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. (Com. L. 1873, secs. !!'195 to 2502, inclusive.) lo.'EW HAMPSHIRE • 

StaltLtonJ provisions. 

Person setting up or offering to dispose of property by means oflottery liable t-0 a fine not exceeding !500. {Sec. 1, Gen'l Laws, 1876, p. 614.) Person who sells or offers for sale lottery tickets or prints or publishes any account of lottery, punishable by a fine not exceeding ~100. (Sec. 2, Id.) Person mailing letters or circulars concerning lottery for delivery in this State liable t-0 a fine of HOO. (Sec.3, Id.) An indictment under preceding section not necessary to prove who is the owner of property to be drawn or who draws lottery. (Sec. 4.) 

~"EW JERSEY. 

Statutory p1·ovisions. 

All lotteries declared common and public nuisance. (Sec. 51, Rev. Stat. 77, p. 236.) 

Persons OP-ening or drawing a lottery liable to penalty of 82,000, one-half to informer. (Sec.8,Id., p. 459.) Sales and transfers of property in pursue.nee of lottery void. (Sec. 9, Id.) Persons selling lottery tickets liable to a. penalty of not exceeding $100 or im- prisonment at hard labor not exceeding one year, or both. (Sec. 62, Icl., p. 236.) 

Insuring for or against lottery tickets punished by fine not exceeding SlOO, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. (Sec. 53, Id., p. 236.) 

Constitutionai pravision. 

''No lottery sho.11 be authorized by this State, and no ticket in any lottery not authorized by a law of this State shall be bought 01· sold within this State." 

(Art. 4, sec. 2.) NEW YORK, 

Constitutional provision. 

"Nor shall any lottery hereafter be authorized or any sale of lottery tickets allowed within this State." (Const. 1846, Art. 1, sec. 10.) 

Statuto1·y provision•. 

All lotteries common and public nuisance. (Sec. 26, Rev. Stat. (7th Add.), vol. 

3, p.1967.) 

Persons setting up lottery liable to a. fine equal to whole amount involved in such lottery, and if that can not be ascertained, 82,500 or imprisonment not ex- ceeding two year!!, or both. (Sec. 'Z7, Id.) Advertisement of lotteries prohibited under a. penalty not exceedini:: 8150, or imprisonment not exceeding three months. (Sec. 28, Id., 1968.) Persons selling tickets liable to a fine of not exceeding $.500 or impril!!onment not exceeding one year, or both. (Sec. 29, Id.) 

Selling or offering to sell property by means of lottery punishable by fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding one year. (Sec. 30, Id.) 

Property offered for sale by means of lottery forfeited. (Sec. 31, Id.) Persons purchasing tickets may recover double amount pa.id for same. (Sec. 

32

i~~lng tickets prohibited by section 'Z7, punished by fine not exceeding ~.000,(?) or imprisonment not exceeding one year. (Sec. 36, Jd.) The above provisions of the Revised Statutes a.re taken from the act of 18'Z7, page 327, and except from the operation of the statute Iott-cries authorized by the law of the State. The clause in the Constitution of 1840, abflvequoted,elimi- na.tes all the exceptions from the statute. (See Fay's Dig. Laws of N. Y., vol. 3, 

p.192.) NORTH CAilOLINA. 

Statutory provision. 

Persons who set up or promote or offer property for sale by means oflottery liable to a. fine not exceeding S2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. {Sec. 1047 Code of 1881.) Persons selling tickets or acting as a.gent of lottery to be d.rawn in or out of State liable to penalty provided in preceding section. (Sec. 1048, Id.) 

NORTH DAKOTA. 

(No constitutional provision). 

OHIO. 

Constitutional provision. 

"Lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets for any purpose whatever shall for• ever be' prohibited in this State." (Const.1851, art.15, sec. 6.) 

Stahitory provisions. 

"Whoever writes, prints, or pnbltshes in any way an account of any lot- tery, etc., punished by fine not more than $100." (Sec. 6929, Rev. Stat., 1880.) 

Selling of lottery tickets punished by fine not more than $500 or imprison- ment not more than six months, or both. (Sec. 6930, Id.) 

Opening, carrying on, or acting as agent for lottery punished by fine not more than .,;500 nor less than $50, or by imprisonment not more than ninety nor less than ten days. (Sec. 6931, Id.) 

• OREGON. 

Constitutional p1·ovisions. 

"Lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets for any purpose whatever are pro- hibited, and the Legislative Assembly shall prevent the same by penal laws." (Art. 15, sec. 4.) 

Statutory ptovisions. 

Persons setting up or promoting a. lottery liable to imprisonment in penitentiary not Jess than six month! nor more than one year, or in a.ny county jail not less than three months nor more than one year, or by tine not more than n,ooo nor less than $100. (Sec. 659. Rev. Laws, 1872, page 435.) 

Selling lottery tickets punished by fine not less than S50 nor more than S.500, or by imprisonment in county jail not less than three months nor more than one year. (Sec. 660 Id.) Advertisement ofJottery tickets punished by imprisonment in county jail not less than one month nor more than six months, or by fine not less than $20 nor more than $200. (Sec. 661, Id.) 

Selling of false and fictitious lottery tickets punished by imprisonment in penitentiary not less than one year nor more than three years. (Sec. 662, Id.) Second conviction for violating sections 659 and 660; pens.It)', imprisonment in penitentiary not more than three nor less than one year. (Sec. 664, Id,) 

-· 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Statutory pl'ovisions. 

All lotteries declared to be a public nuisance and all transfers of property in pursuance of any lottery void. (Sec. 81, Brightly and P. 's Dig., vol.1, p. 3-31.) 

Setting up a lottery punished by fine not exceeding Sl,000 and imprisonment in solitary confinement at hard labor not· exceeding one year. (Sec. 82, Id.) 

Any person who sells or exposes to sale or advertises for sale lottery tickets shall be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor not exceeding two years, and to pay a fine not exceeding 51,000. 

RIIODE ISLAND. 

Constitutional prov is-ions, 

"All lotteries shall hete.'\fter be prohibited in this State except those already authorized by the General Assembl,y." (Art.4,sec.12.) 

Statutory proi:isions. 

Persons setting up, promoting, or carrying on a lollery guilty of a misde- meanor, and liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or fine not ex- ceeding $2,000. (Sec. 1, ch. 2-!6, Public Stat. 1882, p. 600.) The sale of tickets in lottery punished by fine not exceeding $50. (Sec. 2, Id., 

p.691.) 

Notes jitiven for lottery tickets void. (Sec. 3, Id.) 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Constitutional provisions. 

"Lott-cries and tht' sale of lottery tickets for any purpose whatever are pro. hibited, and the General Assembly shall prevent the same by penal statutes." (Art. 14, sec. 2.) • Statutory provisions. 

Setting up and promoting lottery punished by fine of $1,000; one-third to State, one-third to informer, and one-third to poor, and court shall also com- mit party to jail for twelve months. (Sec. 1, chap. 13.5, Rev. Stat., p. 737.) Persons advertising or contributing to a lottery subject to a. fine of 8100. (Sec. 

Z, Id.) 

Selling lottery tickets punished by fine of not exceeding 810,000. (Sec. 3, Id.) 

SOUTH DAKOTA. 

Oonstitutional provisions. 

"The Legislature shall not authorize any game of chance, lottery, 01· gift en- terprise under any pretense or for any purpose whatsoever." lArt. 3, sec. 25.) 

TENNESSEE. 

Constitutional p1·ovisions. 

"The Legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in this State." (Art. 2, 

sec. 5.) Staltdory provisions. 

Any person who makes or aids in ma.king, draws or aids in drawing, or in any way interested in drawing a lottery, guilty of misdemeanor, and Ji.able to a fine of Sl.000 and imprisonment in county jail three months. (Sec. 4889, Rev. Stat. 1871, vol. 3. This sec. taken from act 1835, ch. 44, s«ic. 2.) 

Selling of tickets in lottery punished by fine of 8500 and one month in county 

jail. (Sec. '1890, Id.) Persons buyiug lottery tickets liable to a fine not exceeding $100 or imprison- ment in county jail not more than twenty days. (Sec. 4891, Id.) 

TEXAS • 

ConstilutionCJl provisions. 

The Legislature shall pass Jaws prohibiting the establishment of lotteries and gift enterprises in the State as well as the sale of tickets in lotteries, gift enter- prises, or other evasions involving the lottery principle established or existing in other States. (Const. 1875, arb. 3, sec. 47.) 

Statutory provi$ions. 

If any person shall establish a. lottery or dispose of any estate, real or perS-Ona.1, 

by lottery, he shall befinednotlessthanSlOOnormorethan 51,000. (Crim. Code, 

1879, art. 351, p. 47.) If any person shall sell or offer for sale or keep for sale any ticket or part of ticket in any lottery, he shall be fined not less thau SlO nor more than SOO. 

(Crim. Code, 1879, art. 352, p. 47.) 

VERMONT. 

Statutory prouisions. 

Setting up or promoting a lottery not authorized by law of State punished by fine not more than $200. (Sec. 4302, Rev. Laws, 1880, p. 285.) 

Disposing- of property by game of chance punished by fine not more than S!!OO. (Sec. 4303, Id.) 

Selling of tickets in lotteries except those authorized by the law of the State or of the United States punished by fine not exceeding $300. (Sec. 4.304, Id.) 

VIRGU."'IA. 

Constitutional pro-vis ions. 

"No lottery shall hereafter be authorized by law, and the buyinir, selling, or transferring of ticket or chances in any lottery shall be prohibited." (Art. 5, 

sec.18.) Old constitution contains same provisions. 

Statutory pl'ovi~i.ons. 

Persons buying or selling lottery tickets or setting up or promoting a lottery liable to imprisonment in jail not more than one year or fined not more than $500. 

WASHINGTON. 

Con&titutional p1·ovision. 

The Legislature shall never authorize any lottery or gl.'ant any divorce. (Art. 

III, sec. 24.) · 

WEST VIRGINIA. 

Constitutional provision. 

No lottery shall be allowed by law, and the buying, selling, 01· transferring of tickets or chances in any lottery shall be prohibited. {Art. II, sec. L) 

Stalulorv provi.sioM. 

Setting up or promoting Joltery, and the selling of lottery tickete, punished by imprisonment in county jail not more than one year, and fine not exceeding $500. (Sec. U, Code of 1870, p. 698. See also acts of 1875, p. 150.) All property proposed to be drawn by lottery forfeited to State. (Sec. 12, Codo of 1870, p. 698.) 
f .. . , ... 

1890. ~· 

·.. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8717 

WISCONSIN. 

ConslitutionaL provision. 

"The Leghla.ture shall never authorize any lottery." (Art. III, sec. 24.) 

Statutory provision. 

Setting up or promoting a. lottery, punished by fine or punished by imprison- ment In county jail not more than six: months, or fine notmorethan$100. (Sec. 

4523, Rev. Stat., 1878, p.1068.) Selling of lottery tickets punished by fine not exceeding $.500. (Sec. 4.524, 

I<!Jersons advertising lottery tickets or aiding in sale of snme liable t-0 a. fine not exceeding $100. (Sec. 4.525, Jd.) 

Selling fictitious lottery tickets punished by imprisonment not morevthan one year nor less than six months, or fine not exceeding $500. (Sec. 4526, .) 

Property in lottery forfeited to State. tSec. 4527, ld. ) 

WYOMING. 

(No constitutional provision.) 

RECAPITULATION. 

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Coiorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Yvrk, Ohio, 

Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia~ and Wisconsin, in all, thirty- one States, have in their constitutions prohibited lotteries, while Connecticut, Kentucky, .Maine, Ma:isachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, 

North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, eight, have enacted laws prohibiting lotteries. Delaware and Vermont, by their respective constitutions, prohibit all lotteries except those authorized by law, and none are authorized by law. North Dakota and Wyoming, ao far as I can find have failed todeal with the question in their constitutions. Loui- sian~. by her constitution, recognizes lotteries, and her Legislature is 

authorized to grant charters to lottery companies upon the payment of 

$40 000 per annum to the State. "All charters to expire 1st day of 

Jan'uary, 1895. Lotteries prohibited thereafter." - Thus, forty-two of the forty-four States of the Union have expressed 

the wishes of their people; and, it being the wish of the great majority 

of the States of this Union that lotteries should not be permitted, it is 

my humble opinion that the parent Government should protect the 

States to the fullest extent,,. 

Many of the States by statutory provision prohibit lottery advertisements and prohibit lottery agencies or the sale of lottery tickets, and 

subject the offender to fines from $50 to $2,000. Many, very many, 

of the best newspapers in the land refuse to become parties to this 

scheme of obtaining money by false pretenses, and refuse to advertise 

lotteries, and advocate the justness of the people's cause in excluding 

from the mails papers that do advertise lotteries or lottery drawings. 

I regret to say that the District of Columbia, the seat of the Government of this nation, has failed to provide nece~ry legislation to prohibit the carrying on and advertising this worst of all classes of gambling, 

and in consequence this city contributes, as I am advised, about $1,-

500,000 annually. 

The immense wealth accumulated by this Louisiana State Lottery 

has enabled it to control almost everything in Louisiana. Finance, 

politics, morals, seem to be controlled by this power, and to oppose it, 

particularly in New Orleans, seems to be fatal. 

If we shonld be disposed to believe editorials appearing in the leading New Orleans papers lately, we would be convinced that lottery 

money was used very largely tt> elect governors and Legislatures wit.h 

a view to control legislation. 

I am advised, too, that not long since, almost within the shadow of 

the Dome of the Capitol of this nation, a well known gentleman of this 

city ga.ve a dinner to a number of distinguished gentlemen, and when 

the wine flowed freely one of the speakers of the occasion took the opportunity to put all parties upon notice that if there was any legislation 

permitted nt this session of Congress antagonistic to the interests of 

the Louisiana State Lottery, the company would see during the next 

campaign that any member favoring such legislation should be relegated to the shades of private life. If this be true, it is quite apparent 

that the Louisiana State Lottery is not only in the business of making 

statesmen, but when necessary is disposed to engage in unmaking them. 

The good people of the State of Lon.isiana are making an honest, honorable, lieroic effort to purge the State of this plague, that bas for the 

past twenty years been a blot upon the good name and fame of her 

people. Let us stand up and be counted as her friends. The United 

::::!tates can not afford to longer remain a silent partner. (Applause.] 

Mr. HITT. 1\Ir. Speaker, the lottery is the most pernicious and 

widespread form of gambling vice, because it uses for its instrument 

the Post-Office Department; that is, the Government. The ordinary 

gambling hell is confined to one house and its frequente1·s. A lottery 

spreads through the whole nation; it reaehes everywhere, and it does 

it by the aid of the Government. It was not for this that we built up our magnificent postal system, which is supported at such vast expense 

annually. Yet that postal system is the instrument to-day and might 

almost be ealled the partner or accessory of this great swindling 

scheme. 

What else is the1·e of it ? The capital stock of the Louisiana Lottery 

Company when it was organized was called $1,000,000; that is, they 

pretended that there was a million of dollars invested in shares of 

stock. As a matter of fact, the investment consisted of some stationery 

and tickets, a franchise, and the faeilities afforded by the United States 

mails, with the protection which the Government accords to the sacred.· ness of the seal, and thus kept all their business secret, while affording 

them every facility for carrying on this profitable mischief. So the 

stock rose to 1,400 per cent. This bill, it is believed, will do what 

several others which we have passed for the same purpose failed to 

do, stop that partnership, end that abuse; and we can prove by our votes to-day in passing it as Representatives that thiu is a. Government 

for the people, for their good, and not to destroy the people by nourishing this engine of deceit and wrong. 

Again and again the Postmaster-General has tried to exclude the 

lottery letters and tickets from the mails, but the law has been evaded, 

and the question now comes up again with the increase of the wrong. 

The President has sent us a pressing message; the Post-Office Department has collaborated in the preparation of this bill; the Attorney-General has pronounced it constitutional and efficient; it has the sympathy 

of good men and women everywhere. It is to extinguish an industry 

of wrong that has grown to such stupendous proportions that it now gathers in $22,000,000 annually from the people. 

The company .has become so balefully powerful that it attempts to 

debauch Legislator~ and the press and many of the people in a great 

State. It attempted by enormous bribery and offer of a quarter of a million dollars to capture North Dakota, but the sturdy people of that 

State, poor and hard pressed as they were, proved to be of a stronger 

and bett;er material than these schemers had estimated. 

It is demoralizing to people. Go down to their office in this city 

and see the long line of anxious faces gathered there every day, poorly 

dressed women, workingmen, eager clerks, the eyes of all lighted 

with cupidity and dazzled with the promises of the company. These 

policyoffices exert the same evil influence everywhere, and thousands more are reached through the mails until the lottery craze and infatuation grows upon them and they spend all they have in this insane 

gambling, and often end in ruin, sometimes in suicide. 

There is an enormous gamblin.~ hell conducted with great splendor 

at Monaco, in Italy, which has corrupted the press into silence and 

entices the world by palatial splendora. An officer of the British 

Christian Association, which had undertaken to investigate the real 

workings of that place, told me that they had a list of two hundred 

suicides there in one year, none of which had been published in the 

press. This was a gambling establishment confined to one place, and 

not like this stupendous Louisiana scheme, which reaches its arms over the whole nation. 

It has corru_pted the employes in the Post-Office Department, as the 

inspectors have reported, and made some of the agents of the Government the agentsofthelottery, who can beintluenced,justasitwasproved 

in Louisiana that members of the Legislature can be influenced by so rich a power. Rail way postal clerks are tempted to rob the mails, see- ing the vast number of these lottery letters passing through containing 

money and knowing that they are letters from a dupe .to a swindler 

and the whole business dishonest. It p~sents unusual temptation to 

the railway postal clerks, and the Department states that there has 

been a great increase of mail robbery from this particnlar quarter. 

The prodigious sums collected by the lottery company, which are drawn 

in small amounts, prove how many thousands of people are becoming infatuat~d with the lottery craze, debased and robbed and turned from 

honest pursuits, and this is getting worse all the time. 

It is not pleasant to people straggling hard with the task of daily life 

to see the prodigious fortunes piled up by this great swindle and to 

witness the dazzling splendors and gayeties at watering places and fashionable resorts of persons who bear the very names that are seen in 

these lottery charters, persons who never do a day's work, never produce a pound of what goes to feed or clothe or render comfortable their 

fellow-man, following an occupation as vile and as pernicious as this 

by the authority of a State, and with the facilities afforded by the 

United States through its Post-Office Department passing all others in 

this world's goods. "They toil not, neither do they spin; yetSolomon 

in all his glory WM not arrayed like one of these.'' 

Without the aid of the Government through the Post-Office Department, the whole business would be cut down to a mere local gambling 

establishment, answerable to the police powers of the local ~overnment. That is what I trust this bill will do. It broadens the present 

law so that a lottery letter can be followed after it is mailed at New Orleans or Washington, which are the centers of the lottery business, 

and the offenders punished wherever the letter goes, not alone in Louisiana, where juries can be readily affected by the tremendous power 

of the lottery company. 

It will close the mails to newspapers advertising lotteries, which will 

be a long step toward destroying their means of reaching and deluding 

the victim by alluring advertisements and promises which appeal to 

the cupidity of the ignorant and unthinking who hasten to be rich 

without labor. Nor does it in the least interfere with the inviolability of the seal upon letters, which will be as sacred hereafter as the.r 

have been and always should be. It authorizes the Postmaster-General, upon satisfa.ctory evidence, which will soon be obtained by the 

agents of the Department, in regard to the character of lottery letters, 

to stop their transmission through the mails and institute proceedings 

'-"". 

.· 

,· . 

-. 

.. . ' 

.. 

-! _, .. 
-· 

·-

-. 

. ' . 

.. -~ .. .... ...... 

8718 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-HOUSE. .AUGUST 16, 

~o :punish those sending. We know that the Postmaster-General will 

faithfully and zealously perform his part if we do ours and pas.s this 

bilJ. Let us do it, and do it now. l\Ir. CRAIN. I now desire a vote on my amendment to section 3, 

being the same as that offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

(Mr. BUCKALEW] to sectioll 2, and adopted by the Honse. The gentleman in charge of the bill will, I suppose, acquiesce in this amendment. 

Mr. HOPKINS. There is no objection to it, a.s I understand. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment of the gentleman from 

Texas to strike out, in line 25 of ser.tion 3, the word "acknowledg7 

ment" and insert "primafacie evidence," will, in the absence of objection, be considered :\S adopted. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CRAIN. I have another amendmentMr. CHEADLE. Why not let the amendment of tile gentleman 

from Arkansas [Mr. ROGERS] be acted on? 

Mr. CRAIN. I have no objection to that. 

The SPEAKER JJro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment 

of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. ROGERS]. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Add to section 3 the following : "But the Postmaster-General shall not be precluded from ascertaining the ex- istence of s11ch agency in any other legal way." 

Mr. HOPKINS. There is no objection to that amendment. The 

same amendment was adopted on motion of the gentleman from 

Georgia [Mr. BLOUNT] to section 2. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. I can not permit a me..'\Sure of such importance as this, and one which will utimately be construed in the courts, to be 

passed without stating in a word my ?PPOSition to such an amendment as that just read. The danger of this and all such amendments is that, 

instead of enlarging the scope of the bill, they narrow the authority 

of the officers upon whom the execution of the act must depend. The 

danger is that the courts and a.11 the other authorities of the Government will be precluded from considering the question here involved, 

simply because Congress has declared that the Postmaster-General may 

ascertain the .matter. If other gentlemen want that sort of a law, that 

is tbeir concern; but in my judgment the probable effect of a provision 

of this kind will be that, instead of enlarging the power of the execnti ve 

bureaus of the Government, it will be found to limit their powers absolutely; and, instead of there being simply a. prima faeie pre8nmption, 

it will be a conclusive presumption in all the other Departments ex- cept that of the Postmaster-General. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to say one word in re- ply to my friend from Ohio (Mr. GROSVEXOR]. He and I are seeking 

precisely the same end. We desire that the Postmaster-General may 

have all the power be may legally exercise in this matter. Now, for 

the ascertainment of who are the agents of this lottery company, you 

prescribe here one method, the publication in a newspaper that a particular man or corporation is an a~ent; and it is declared that such publication shall be prima facie evidence of the agency. This provision is 

the expression of one method of ascertaining the agency. Now, in this 

case, I fake it, the rule of law would apply that the expression of one 

thing operates as an exclusion of everything else. The amendment I 

offer seeks to broaden rather than limit the scope of the inquiry, and 

allows the existence of the agency to be ascertained by any legal method 

that may be suggested. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. That I would be perfectly willing to assentto, 

but the afoendment limits the ascertainment to a single bureau of the 

Government. 

Mr. ROGERS. Not atall With tbeamendmenttheprovision will 

read in this way: 

The public advertisement by such person or company so conducting anysach 

lottery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device, that remittances for the same may be made by mC!l.ns of postal money-orders to any other person, firm, bank, cor- poration, or association named therein shall be held to beprima/aeieevidence of the existence of said agency by all the parties named therein, but the Post- master-General shall not be precluded from ascertaining the existence of such agency in any other legal way. 

In this form the provision is not a limitation, but a widening of the 

power of the Government in reference to this matter. 

Mr. GROSVE~OR. Suppose this bill should become a law and a party should be indicted under it, would not the court be compelled 

to charge the jury that so far as they were concerned the advertisement 

of the lottery com]Jany wasprimafacie evidence on this point? 

Mr. ROGERS. I do not think so. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. That is exactly the danger. 

Mr. ROGERS. I do not think any snch consequence would follow, 

because this provision here has nothing in the world to do with the 

question of an indictment in the courts; it refers simply to the ascer- tainment of the existence of the agency by the Postmaster-General for 

the purpose ofstopping"tbe transmission of the mail matter of the party. 

That is the whole object. And I take it if a man advertised me in a newspaper as a horse-thief when it was produced and read in court 

the court would hardly admit that it was evenprima facie evidence of 

my guilt. I assume that it would not be evidence at all. But this 

provision makes it evidence, so far as the lotwy is concerned. 

Mr. HOPKINS. l\Ir. Speaker, there has been no objection, I believe1 interposed to the amendment. The committee is willing to have b 

adopted, and I ask a vote. 

The amendment of Mr. ROGERS was adopted. 

~Ir. CRAIN. I desire to know, Mr. Speaker, whait was done with 

the amendment I offered to section 3, providing that the words "an 

acknowledgment" should be stricken out and "1Jri11iafacie 11 inserted? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That was adopted. 

Mr. HAYES. How much time have I remaining, as controlling the 

time on this side? 

The SPEAKER. The Ohair is informed that the gentleman has ten 

minutes remaining. 

Mr. HANSBROUGH was recognized. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I think the gentleman will not object when I make 

it. There seems to be misunderstanding on both sides as to the division of ti~e. I ask the attention of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

HOPKINS]. The Speaker announced that the gentlemen from Iowa. [Mr. 

HAYES] had ten minutes time remaining. I wish to know if there has 

been any agreement as to the division of time beyond certain amendments? 

Mr. HOPKINS. ·I do not know of any. !think the gentleman from 

Iowa occupied bis time. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair was informed that the gentleman had 

ten minutes more. 

Mr. BLOUNT. There was no divisi<_>n of time except as t-0 two amendments. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized, 

after which the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. HANSBROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I recently bad the misfortune 

to encounter the opposition of what bas aptly been termed the lottery 

octopus, and, like the fellow who accidentally collided with the mule, 

I got the worst of it. My opposition to the lottery antedates my election as a member of this House, and I have frequently taken occasion 

since then to emphasize that opposition, so that what I may say in the 

brief remarks I shall make at this time can not be said to be the result 

of disappointment. 

The bill under consideration is a substitute for a bill I introduced in 

this House on the 3d of April last. It contains some additional provisions, in which I cheerfully concur. At the time of the introduction 

of the bill, it seemed to me that it was clearly the duty ot this Congress to enact some sort of measure that would strengthen existing 

statutes touching the question of lotteries. I have bad no reason to 

change my mind on the subject; in fact, my belief that something 

should be done. is a little stronger now than it was then. 

The State of North Dakota, which I have the honor to represent 

upon this floor, passed through an ordeal last winter that but few 

States in this Union have ever experienced. An attempt was made 

at that time by an organization of men, residents and non-residents, 

to secure legislative authority for the establishment of a lottery in 

North Dakota. The State had been in the Union but two months. 

By a serious oversight on the part of those who framed the State con- stitution, the lottery prohibition clause which is to be found in the 

constitutions of every State in the Union except three, I believe, was omitted from the constitution of North Dakota. It is claimed by some 

that this omission was by design; that the men who, after the adoption of the constitution and during the first session of the first State 

Legislature, sought to obtain a charter for the establishment of a lottery, know more about the omission of the lottery prohibition clause 

than they would now confess to. 

Yet, Mr. Speaker, in justice to the majority of the gentlemen who 

composed that constitutional convention, I want to say that I do not 

believe, ii the failure to insert such a clause was by design, that there were more than half a dozen members of the convention who were at 

the time aware of the purpose sought to be accomplished. Howsoever 

this may have been, the general public did not discover the omission 

until a bill was introduced in the Legislature early in the present year 

providing for the chartering of a lottery in North Dakota. The advocates of the bill offered the plausible and seductive argument that the 

young State was poor, thn,t her people were poor, and that the men who were asking for the lottery charter were rich. 

The first two propositioni were true; the State and her people were 

poor and they are poor to-day; but, be it said to their g1·eat credit, they 

have not yet reached that degree of want in poverty which would induce them to sell their honor and their manhood. The lott.ery men 

were willing to pay the State $100, 000 for the privilege of opening their 

game a.tits capital; and, as a final inducement, when public sentiment was about to drive them from the field, they proposed, in addition to 

the $100,000 in cash, to donate to the farmers-many of whom for two 

consecutive years had lost their grain crops-they proposed to donate 

to the farmers of the State 150, 000 bushels of seed-wheat-a. total bribe 

offered by the lottery people equal to $250, 000. Let it be again recorded 

that our people, poor as they are, spurned that offer also. The State 

senate did pass the bill, but the positive and unswerving opposition of 

.: 
,-

' . : 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8719 

the gov~or and other well disposed people checked the measure in minded and credulous people. For the sake of the integrity of those 

the lower house, where it was indefinitely postponed. weakerStatesofthe Union,wheretheallurementsofgoldmayovercome 

And this was the end of the beginning of lottery legislation in my the pride that is a part of honorable poverty; for the sake of the inst.ate. Where the beginning of the end will be, I can not say. Cer- tegrity of the National Government itself, I appeal to the members of 

tain it is that the serpent is not dead. I believe it is simply scotched. this House to vote for this bill and thus wipe out an evil that has alThe enactment of the bill under consideration will do much toward ready reached alarming proportions. [Applause.] 

discouraging further attemps to pollute the politics and corrupt the Mr. RLOUNT. Mr. Speaker,-duringprecedingCongressesI had the 

people of North Dakota by establishing an institution that for so many honor of being chairman of the Committee on the Post-Office and Postyears has disgraced one of the older States of the Union. Roads of the House, and made special effo1'ta during my service on 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not charge the concern known as the Loni- thatcommittee fortbe purpose of passing anti-lottery legislation, espesiana Lottery Company with entire responsibility for what took place cially the feature embodied in this bill which excludes from the mail,!\ 

in my State last winter. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that the of the Unit.ed States papers containing lottery advertisements. In thd 

Louisiana Lottery Company 11er se was not directly implicated. It is Congress before the last, while a majority report was made from the 

said an agent of that company was on the ground at oar State capital committee, it so happened that under the rules of procedure adopted 

while the question was up in the Legislature, but that his mission there by the House the subject was never reached for action. 

was not, in fact, to transfer the New Orleans game to our State, but In the last Congre~ it so happened that, without refere...1ce t-0 party 

simply to frighten the people of Louisiana. into the belief that such lines, a majority of the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads 

transfer would take place if the Legislature of the latter State refused regarded tlle measure as unconstitutional, and for that and other reato recharter the concern; that the threat to remove from Louisiana. to sons reported the same adversely. 

North Dakotawaa simply a club held over the heads of the people of 'rhe country is to be congratulated that we have assembled together 

Louisiana. And from reports recently printed in the papers it looks now under different circumstances. Slowly there bas been developing 

as if the threat had had the desired effect. in the public mind of the country a demand for reform in this regard. 

The general impres3ion that a large capital is required to start a Certain acts on the part of the Louisiana Lottery Company in endea.vlottery is erroneous. Why does it need large capital to begin with'? oriog to get charters from the State of Louisiana and the State of North 

Certainly not to pay prizes. With a State charter behind it to give it Dakota have arrested public attention to the enormity of the crimes 

apparent respectability and with a few thousand circulars and a live of that organization and prepared an opinion outside as well as in 

advertising agent, a lottery company may set a date-say three months this House to give effect to the moral sense of the country. 

ahead-when a drawing will take place. By that time enough tickets The St.ates of the Union, all of them, except one, either by constituwill have been sold for cash to pay all the prizes offered and 100 per tional provision or legislative enactment, have announced their judgcent. upon the company's stock besides. I was told recently by a gen- ment upon the moral phase of this question. In the State of Alabama, 

tleman who knows something of the inside workings of such enter- for instance-and I will read a few extracts as an illustration of the prevprises that the fairest and squarest lottery that ever existed never paid alent sentiment throughout the country in regard to lotteries-proout in prizes over 30 per cent. of its receipts. There is no means of vision is made thatknowing wha~ the total disbursements are. No wonder Louisiana The General Assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift; en· 

Lottery Company's stock, said to have originally been worth 35 cents terprises for any purposes, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift-enterprise tickets in any scheme in the nature of a. lottery in this St&te; and on the dollar, was recently semi-officially quoted in New York at all acts or parts of acts heretofore passed by the General Assembly ofthis State 

$1, 400 per share. No wonder that an association of lottery sharps could a.uthorizini: a. lottery or lotteries, and all acts o.mendatory thereof or suppleoffer $250,000 for the privilege of doing business in North Dakota. mental thereto, are herebyn.voided. 

No wonder that the managers of the New Orleans game could afford to The State of Arkansas declares in her constitution as follows: 

offer, as they are reported to have offered recently, upward of a million The General Assembly shall not authorize any lottery and shall prohibit the 

dollars per year for an extension of its charter. sale of any lottery ticket!'!. 

There is nothing that is legitimate in lotteries. There is everything The State of California declares in her fundamental law: 

in them that is illegitimate and demoralizing. They advertise to pay The Legislature shall ha.ve no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises . . D h for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale in this State of lottery certain amounts of money In prizes. o t ey do it? Who knows? or gift enterprise tickets, or tickets in any scheme in the nl!-ture of a. lottery. 

Only the managers know. To whom are the managers responsible? These are but samples, Mr. Speaker, and I might go on reading from 

Not to the law. They are responsible to themselves only. There is constitutions and laws of nearly all of the States of this Union embodyno way to compel them to do what they agree to do. The lottery draw- ing similar declarations in regard to these infamous enterprises. 

ings take place in the presence of and are conducted by those persons I hold in my hand a report made by the Senator from Iowa (l\Ir. 

only who are interested in the dividends. WILSON], in which he sums up as follows: 

And who, let me ask, is it tha.li suffers most at the hands of the lot- From U1e foregoing it appears that lotteries are prohibited by constitutional _ 

tery? It is not the man or woman of weal th, for they are not usually provisions in A.Jabama, Arkansas, Ca.liforn ia, Colorado, Florida., Georgia, Illitempted by games of chance, and if they are they can afford to lose a nois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota., l'.Iississippl, Ne· 

fi d Ila · th t It · t th · d t braska, Nevada, New.Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon Rhode Island. South ew o rs In a way. lS no e man or woman lD mo era e Carolina., Tennessee, •.rexas, Virginia., West Virginia., and \Visconsin-total, 27; 

circumstances and of frugal, saving habits, for they know the value of by statutory provisions in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland. 1\Iassachusetts, 

money and are not slow to discover the illegitimacy ofa concern that Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina., and Peunsylvania.--total, 8; by ~ to th d f. B t ]i"" S k •t · th constitution or statute, or both, 3-5. pro esses pa.y a ou.san or one. u • ir · pea er, 1 lS e poor Delaware and Vermont prohibit all lotteries except those authorized by the man or poor woman with their last miserable dollar, and being the last laws of the Staie. 

dolla!' and they not knowing where the next is coming from, it may- Louisiana by constitutional provision authorizes lotteries until1895, after which 

th · · ti f" ts -d · d k ·ts they are prohibited. so runs e_1ma.,ITllla ono 1 possessor raw a prize an ma ei owner Lottery advertisements prohibitM in Cali[ornia., Colorado, Florida.. Illinois, 

happy. Vain hope! And if it draws a blank the poor, desperate CTe!l· India.no., Kentucky, 1\Ia.ine, Ma.ryla.nd, :Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

ture can not be much worse off. And so that last dollar goes to buy a. Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Penn-

. "th t tr d" th thl ·rt t sylvania., and 'Visconsin-total, 20. coupon In e grea • ex aor inary, mammo ' mon Y gJ en er- From the fore"oing it clearly appears that the bill reported by the committee 

prise,'' and it is dropped into the slot with a million other last miser- is not only within the power and duty of Congress, but is also in harmony with 

able dollars extraeted, under false pretenses, from the pockets of the and in support of the policy ot every State in the Union. 

poor; and what do the managers of the lottery care if the bread that Mr. Speaker, strange t-0 say that, notwithstanding the various States 

those last dollars should have purchased is not forthcoming to appease of this Union by entering it into their fundamental law or by statutes 

the hunger of unfortunate children or other dependents? have expressed the moral abhorrence of the people of those States t-0 C I submit that it is the highest duty of Congress to lessen the tempta- the lottery system, and above all things else to the lottery system 

tions constantly thrown in the pathway of the thousands of people known as the Louisiana. lottery, the mails of the United States have 

who cEmtinue to believe that the traditional pot of gold is to be found been carrying, by means of the press of the country, advertisements of 

at the end of the rainbow. It is the duty of Congress to check the these criminal schemes for plundering the poor all over this land, until 

lottery evil now, ere it grows even more powerful than Congress itself. with audacious spirit they were seeking to insert in the fundamental 

It i'3 no answer to the absolute necessity that exists for legislation laws of States in this Union the constitutional right to continue. And 

against the lottery to say that such legislation is unconstitutional. -how has action been delayed against this evil? 

The test will be in the application of the law. If the legitimate busi- ·rhis Capitol has been infested with it.'3 agents, with it.s counsel. The 

ness of any citizen should be interfered with by the enactment of the press of the country h as in a large measure subserved its purposes, and 

proposed amendment to existing statutes, ample remedy may be found there has been thrust before us in this body and the other, from time 

in the courts. I have no doubt that if Congress does its duty in this 1:o time, the declaration that there was no constitutional power to prematt.er now the courts will not be slow in doing theirs when the time vent this enormity. I am glad, sir, that we have reached that state 

comes. of public sentiment where the decision of the Supreme Court of the 

The Government under present conditions is virtually a silent part- United States ha.a declared that the CongreFs of the United States shall 

ner in every lottery enterprise in this country, and as such is largely have authority to declare what shall or shall not be placed in the mails 

instrumental in assisting to rob the people whom it should protect of the United States. The decisions of the courts have been clear and 

against impositions of all kinds. The post-offices and mail-bags of this unmistakable, but the contrary opinion bas been dingged into everycountry should be legally closed against the fraudulent enterprises I body's ears, and confusion came until a healthier public sentiment 

which live and thrive upon the dollars wrung from the pockets of weak- made a healthier moral perception on the part of legislators. We have 

. ' 

,. I 

··-

--
-· 

. \ 

8720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 16, 

reached, sir, a point where the power is cle'.lr, and, the power being 

clear to exclude the instrumentalities of this corporation to continue 

its crimes, the moral sentiment of the country is about to be responded 

to by legislation in pursuance of it. It is a stupendous wonder that we have been delayed until this hour in the exercise of the power to ex- clude newspapers containing lott-ery advertisements from the mail. 

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take occasion here to quote the words of the 

Supreme Court of the United States upon this question: 

The following is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 

States in Ex pa1te Jackson (96 United States Supreme Court Reports): 

1. The power vested in Congress to establish " post-offices and post-roads" embraces the regulation of the entire postal system of the country. Under it Congress ma.y designate wha.t shall be carried in the mail and what excluded. 2. In the enforcement of regulations excluding matter from the mail a. dis- tinction is to be made between what is Intended to be kept free trom inspection, such as letters and sealed packages subject to letter postage, and what is open to inspection, such as newspapers, magazines. pamphlets, and other printed 

matter, purposely left in a condition to be examined. 3. Letters and packages, subject to letter postage, in the mail can be opened and examined only under like warrant, issued upon similar oat.h or affirma- tion, particularly describini;t the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be sequre in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspeclio~, 

'vherever they may be. 4. Regulations against transporting in the mail printed matter, which is open to examination, can not be enforced so as to interfere in any manner with the freedom of the nress. Liberty of circulating is essential to that freedom. 'Vhen, 

therefore, printed matter is excluded from the mail, its transportation in any other wa.y as merchandise can not be forbidden by Congress. 5. Regulations excluding matter from the mail may be enforced through t.he courts upon competent evidence of their violation obtained in other ways than by the unlawful inspection of letters and sealed packages; and with respect to objectionable printed matter, open to examinatien, they may in some cases also be enforced by the direct action of the officers of the postal service upon their own inspection, as where the object is exposed, and shows unmistakably that it is prohibited, as in the case of an obscene picture or print. 6. When a. party is convicted of a.n offense and sentenced to pay a (ine it is within the discretion of the court to order his imprisonment until the fine shall be paid. 

PETITIO::s' FOR 'WRIT OF. HABEAS CORPUS AXD CERTIOR.UU, 

Section 3894 of the Revised Statutes provides that- " No letter or circular concerning illegal lotteries, so-called gift concerts, or other similar enterprises, offering prizes, or concerning schemes devised and intended to deceive and defraud the public for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses, shall be carried in the mail. Any person who shall knowingly deposit or send anything to be conveyed by mail 10 violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $)00 nor less than $1CO, with costs of prosecution." 

By an act approved July 12t 1876 (19 Stat., 90), the wo1·d" illegal" was stricken out of the section. Under tne la.w as thus amended the petitioner was in- dicted, in the circuit court of .the United States for the southern district of New York, for knowingly and unlawfully depositing, on the 23d of February, 

1877, a.~ tha.t district., in the mail of the United States, to be conveyed in H, a circular concerning a lottery oftering prizes, in closed in an envelope addressed to one J.Ketcham, at Gloversville, N. Y. T~ indictment set forth the offense in separate counts, so o.s to cover every form in which it could be stated under 

the act. Upon beingarrnigned, the prisoner stood mute, refusing to plead; and there- upon a plea of not guilty was entered in his behalf by order of the court (Revised 

Statutes, section 1032). Ile was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, with the costs of the prosecution, and to be committed to the county jail until the fine and costs were paid. Upon his commitment, which followed, he presented to this court a petition alleging that he was imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the marshal of the southern district of New York, under the conviction; that such conviction was illegal, and the illegality con- sisted in this: that the court had no jurisdiction to punish him for the acts charged in the indictment; that the aet under which the indictment was drawn was unconstitutional and void, and that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in committing him until the fine was paid. He therefore prayed for a writ of habeas corpus to be directed to the marshal to bring him before the cow·t, and a writ of certiorari to be directed to the clerk of the circuit court to send up the record of his conviction, that the court might 

inquire into the cause and legality of his imprisonment. Accompanying the petition, as exhibits, were copies of the indictment and of the record of con vi c- t ion. The court, instead of 01·dering that the writs issue at once, entered a. rule, the counsel of the petitioner consenting thereto, that cause be shown, on a. day 

designated, why the writs should not issue as prayed, and that a. copy of the rule be served on the Attorney-General of the United States, the marshal of the southern district of New York, and the clerk of the circuit court. The Attorney-General, for himself and others, answered the rule by averring that the petition and exhibits do not make out a. case in which this court has jurisdiction to order the writ to issue, and that the petitioner is in lawful cus- tody by virtue of the proceedings and sentence mentioned in the exhibits, and the commitment issued thereon. Mr. A. J. Dittenhoefer and l\Ir. Louis F. Post for the petitioner. 1. From the power to establish post-offices and post-roads, that of 1·eceiving, 

carrying, and delivering the mail is implied, and from these are derived other incidental powers, one of them being the right to protect the mail by appro- priate legislation. (McCullough i·s. Maryland, 4 "\Vheat., 316; Sturtevant 'l:S, 

City of Alton, 3 l'llcLean, 393.) As the power of Congress is exclusive, its legislation establishing a post-of- fice or post-road, or regulating t.11e receipt, protection, carriage, or delivery of the mail, is therefore supreme. Congress has, in the exercise of the power, de- clared (Rev. Stat., sec. 3982) that" No person shall establish any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner cause or provide for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods, over any post· route which ls or may be established by law, or from any city, t-0wn 1 or place to any other city,town, or Jillace between which the mail is regularly canled." 3. The power so vested m Congress imposed upon that body the duty to fur- nish adequate facilities for the secure transportation and delivery of all letters and packets which were l'onsidered legitimate mail matter at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. To provide the requisite funds for the perform- ance of this duty, Congrel!s has imposed reasonable 1·ates of postage; and to protect the contents of the mail bas prohihited the putting in the mail-bags of any poisonous or explosive article which may injure them or the persons con- nected with the mail service; and it has also limited the bulk and weight of mailable packets. These are matters of appropriate regulation. Never, how- ever, until 1836, was any attempt made to exclude established mail matter from the mails. 

The President had previously recommended to Congress the passage of a. lo.w prohibiting the conveyance by mail of publications inciting persons held to service in the Southern States to revolt a.gains~ their masters. Pursuant to the recommendation, a t>ill was introduced in the Senate providing that ft should not. be lawful for any deputy postmast~r knowingly ~o receive and put in to the mail any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, orotherprmted, written, or pictorial 

representation touching the subject of slavery directed to any person or post- office where, by the laws thereof, their circulation was prohibited (Cong. Globe, 

1836, page 150). The measure was signally defeated. The views of the most eminent statesmen of that day, as they appear in the public debates against its passage upon constitutional grounds, are applicable to the statute u~der which the petitioner was convicted, and conclusively demonstrate its constitution- ality. 

4. In the year 1868, Congress, in the exercise of an assumed power declared that it should not be lawful to deposit in a post-office, to be sent by' mail any letters <?r circulars concerning lotteries, so-called gift concerts, or other si~ilar 

enterpru1es (15 Stat., 196), f!olth?ugh all l.etter!I whatsoever, without regard to the c?aracter of the ~c;>mmumc~t1on contamed 10 tl~ei;o, h!ld be~n previously con· s1dered to be leg1t1mate mall matter. That a.ct, m1t1atmg th1s species of legislation, is of a like character with the one governing this case, aud both a.re uncon- stitutional. 

If Congress can exclude from the mail a letter concerning lotteries which have been authorized by State legislation and refuse to carry it by reason of their asserted injurious tendency, it may refuse to carry nny other business let- ter; and as the conveyance of letters otherwise than by the mail of the United States at stated periods. over any post-road, has, as above shown, been prohib- ited by Congress, that body may cut off a.11 means of epistolary communication upon any subject which is objectionable to a majority of its members. So long as the duty of carrying the mails is imposed upon Congress, a letter or a packet which was confessedly mailable matter at the time of the adoption of the Constitution ~n not be excluded from them, provided the postage be pa.id and other regu}a,- tions be observed. 'Vhatever else has been declared to be mailable matter-rui postal cards, postal money-orders, merchandise, etc., all of whlch were un· known to the postal system when the convention concluded its labors in 1787- may, in the discretion of Congress, be abolished. Mr. Assistan\,Attorney-General Smith, contra. 1. Congress has the power "to establish post-offices and post-roads "and to ma.ke all necessary and proper regulations for carrying into execution that power. 

The framers of the Constitution meant to create an establishment as au en- tirety; not merely to designate the places at which mails should be taken up and delivered and the routes by which they should be transported from point to point. Full sovereign control over the whole subject was given to be exer- cised by any appropriate means. (Kohl et al. vs. United States, 91 U s 367. Dickeyv.f. l\laysvllleand Lexington Turnpike Road Co., 7Dana. (Ky.), 113; 'stur: tevantvs. City of Alton, 3 McLean, 393; 2 Story, Const., secs. 1125-1150 · Rawle Const., chapter 9, pages 103, 104.) ' ' 

2. Having exclusive power over the subject Congress ca.n prescribe the mntt~r 

which shall receive ~he benefit~ of this esta~lishment, and he .who complains that he can not use it to transmit obscene or 1mpropercommumcations no more maintains a. constitutional right than does the debtor who can not cwail himself of the bankrupt a.ct because he owes but $100 or because (under the fir ' t law on this subject) he is not a. trader. H is a question of administration merely 

If the public interests require the exclusion of articles morally contamiuating0 

as well as of poisons, acids, or explosives, to prohibit their deposit in the post! office is as "essential to the beneficial exercise of the power 11 granted by the Constitution, though •·not indispensably necessary to its existence 11 as any of those mentioned in J\lcCulloch vs. The State of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316. 

The r~medy is in the hands of the people, if Congress so legisla.t.es as t-0 de· 

prive them of the full and just enjoyment of postal privileges. 

Any State choosing to sanction a business which Congress thinks ought not t-0 have the use of the mails to facilitate its transactions can, if she please pro- vide means of communication for matter so excluded from the mails. (2 Story, 

Const., sec. 1150; 1 Tucker's Bl. Com .. app., 265.) But1 if there is a right to exclude any matter f1·om the mail, the extent. of its exercises is one of legislative discretion. Mr. Justice Field; after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The power vested in Congress" to establish post-offices and post-roads" has been practically construed, since the foundation of the Government to author- ize 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 dis- tributed or forwarded, but the carriage of the mail and all measures necessary to secure it~ safe and speedy transit and the prompt delivery of its contents. The validity of legislation prescribing what should be carried and its weio-ht and form and the charges to which it should be subjected has neverbeenq'7es- tioned. What should be mailable bas varied at different times, changing with the facility of transportation over the post-roads. At one time only letters, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and other prin~ed matter, not exceeding 8 ounces in weight, were carried; afterwards books were added to the list; and now small pa.ck.ages of merchandise not ex- ceeding a prescribed 'V:eight, as well as books and printed matter of all kt'nds, are transported in the mail. The power possessed by C',ongress embraces the regu- lation of the entire postal system of the country. The right to designate what shall he carried necessarily involves the right to determine what shall be ex- cluded. The difficulty attending the subject arises, not from the want of power in Congress to prescribe regulations as to what shall constitute mail matter but from the necessity of enforcing them consistently with rights-reserved t~ the people, of far greater importance than the transportation of the mail. In their enforcement a distinction is to be made between different kinds of mail matter, between what is intended to be kept free from inspection, such as let- ters and sealed packages subject to letter postage, and what is open to inspection, snch ~s newspap«:r:"• magazines, 1;>amphJets, and other printed matter, pur- posely le.fl; m the condition to be exam med. Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail areas fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the pa1·ties for- warding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of lhe right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers thus closed ar,:ainst inspection, wherever they ma.y be. Whilst in the mail they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation pa1ticularly del!cribing the thing to be seized, a.sis required when 

papers nre subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can pla-0e in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail ; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution. Nor can any regulations be enforced against the transportation of printed matter in the mail which is open to examination,so as to interfere in any manner with the freedom of the press. Liberty of circulating is as essential to that free- dom as libe1·ty of publishing; indeed, without circulation the publication would be of little va.lue. If, therefore, printed matter be excluded from the mail, its transportation in any other way can not be forbidden by Congress. ' In 1836 the question 1\8 to the power of Congress t-0 exclude publications from the mail was discussed in the Senate, and the prevailing- opinion of its mem- bers, as expressed in debate, was against the e:xistence of the power. 
,., ...... . ·' 

~ 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8721 

President Jackson, in his annual message of the previous year, had referred to the attempted circulation through the mail o!inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in prints, and in various publications, tending to stimulate them to insurrection; and suggested to C(ingress the prop,riety of passing a law prohibiting, under severe penalties, such cil·culation of• incendi· a.ry publications" in the !?outbern States. In the Senate, that portion of the message was refened to a select committee of which Mr. Calhoun was chairman, and he made an elaborate report on the subject, in :which he contended that it belonged to the States, and not to Con- gress, to determine what is and what is not calculated to disturb their security, and that to hold otherwise would be fatal to the States; for, if Congress might determine what papers were incendiary, and a.s such prohibit their circulation through the mail, it might also determine what were not incendiary and en- force their circulation. Whilst, therefore, condemning in the strongest terms the circulation of the publications, he insisted that Congress had not the power t-0 pass a. law prohibiting their transmission through the mail on the ground that it would a.brid'fe the liberty of the press. "To understand," he said, ''more fully the extent of the control which the right of prohibiting circulation through the mail would give to the Government over the press, it must be borne in mind that the power of Congress over the post-office and the mail is an exclusive power. It must also be remembered that Congress. in the exer- cise of this power, may declare any road or naviirable water to be a post-road, and that, by the act of 1825, it is provided •that no stage or other vehicle which regularly performs trips on a. post-road,or on a road parallel to it, shall carry let- ters.' The same provision extends to packets, boa ts, or other vessels on navigable waters. Like provision may be extended to newspapers and pamphlets which, if it be admitted that Congress has the right to discriminate in refe1·ence t-0 their character what papers shall or what shall not be transmitted by the mail, would subject the freedom of the press on all such subject8, political, moral, and re- ligious, completely to its will and pleasure. It would in fact, in some respects, more effectually control the freedom of the press than any sedition law, how- ever severe its penalties." Mr. Calhoun, at the same time, contended that when a State had pronounced certain publications to be dangerous to its peace and prohibited their circulation, it was the duty of Congress to respect its laws and co-operl\te in their enforcement; and whilst, therefore, Congress could not prohibit the transmission of the incendiary documents through the mails, it could prevent their delivny by the postmasters in the States where their circu- lation wa.s forbidden. In the discussion upon the bill reported by him, similar views against the power of Congress were exwessed by other Senators, who did not concur in the opinion that the delivery of papers could be prevented when their transmission was permitted. Great reliance is placed by the petitioner upon these views, coming, a.s they 

,did in many instances, from men alike distinguished as jurists and statesmen. But it isevidentthattheywere founded upon the assumption that it was compe- tent for Congress to prohibit the transportation of newspapers and pamphlets over postal routes in any other way than by mail, and of course it would tollow that if, with such a prohibition, the transportation in the mail could also be for- bidden the circulation of the documents would be destroyed and a fatal blow given to the freedom of the press. But we do not think that Congress possesses the power to prevent the transportation in other ways, as merchandise, of mat- ter which it excludes from the mails. To give efficiency to its regulations and prevent rival postal syetems it may perhaps prohibit the carriage by others for hire, over postal routes, of articles which legitimately constitute mail matter, in the sense in which those terms were used when the Constitution was adopted, 

con&isting of letters, and of newspapers, and of pamphlets, when not sent a.s merchandise; but further than this its power of prohibition can not extend. Whilst regulations excluding matter 1\oom the mail can not be enforced in a way which would require or permit an examination into letters or sealed pack- ages subject to letter postage, without warrant. issued upon oath or affirmation, in the search for prohibited matter, they may be enforced upon competent evi- dence of their violation obtained in other ways, as from the parties receiving the letters or packages, or from agents depositing them in the post·office, or others cognizant of the facts. And as to objectionable printed matter, which is open to examination, the regulations ma.y be enforced in a similar way by the imposition of penalties for their violation through the courts, and, in some cases, by the direct action of tbe officers of the postal service. In many in- stances, those officers can a.ct upon their own inspection, and, from the nature of the case, must act without other proof, as where the postage is not prepaid, or where there is an excess of weight over the amount prescdbed, or where the object is exposed, and shows unmistakably that it is prohibited, a.s in the case of an obscene picture or print. In such cases no difficulty arises and no principle is violated in excluding the prohibited articles or refusing to forward them. The evidence respecting them is seen by every one and is in its nature conclusive. 

In excluding various articles from the mail the object of Congress ha.s not been to interfere with the freedom of tile press or with any other rights of the people, but to refuse its facilities for the distribution of matter deemed injuri- ous to public morals. Thus by the act of March 3, 1873, Congress declared "that no obscene, nude, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, paper, print, or other publication of an indecent character, or any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion, nor any Article or thing intended or adapted for any indecent or immoral use or nature, nor any written or printed card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means, either of the things before mentioned may be obtained or ma.de, nor any letter upon the envelope of which, or postal card upon which indecent or scurrilous epithets may be written or printed, shall be carried in the mail; and any person who knowingly deposilaorca.usesto be de· posited, for mailing or delivery, any of the herein before mentioned articles or things, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, 

shall, for every offense, be fined not less than $LOO, nor more than~. 003, or im- prisonment at ha.rd labor not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the judge." All that Congress meant by this act was that the mails shocld not be u sed to transport snch corrupting publications and articles, and that any one who attempted to use it for that purpose should be punished. The same inhibition has been extended to circulars concerning lotteries, institutions which are sup- posed to have a demoralizing influence upon the people. There is no question before u!I as to the evidence upon the conviction of the petitioner was had, nor does it appear whether the envelope in which the prohibited circular was de- posited in the mail was sealed or left open for examination. The only question for our determination relates to the constitutionality of the act, and of that we have no doubt. The commitment of the petitioner to the county jail until his fine is paid was within the discretion of the court under the statute. As there is an exemplified copy of the record of the petitioner's indictment and conviction accompanying the petition, the merits of his case have been considered at his request upon this application, and, as we are of the opinion that his imprisonment is legal, no object is subserved byissuingthewrits; they are therefore denied. 

Mr. Speaker, I think we can congratulate ourselves and the country 

upon the fact that we are about to consummate a great moral act in 

XXI-546 

the interests of ijle best people and the best sentiment of the country. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that leave 

be granted members to print remarks in the RECORD. 

There was no objection. 

NATHANIEL l\11K.A.Y ET~ 

Mr. HA.YES. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege I desire to en- ter a motion to reconsider the bill (S. 848) for the relief of Nathaniel 

McKay and the executors of Donald McKay. 

Mr. THO.MAS. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

LOTTER{E.g. 

Mr. HOPKINS. The previous question has been ordered on the lottery bill, and that is the only thing in order. 

The SPEA.KER. The time bas arrived when, under the action of 

the Honse, the previous question is ordered on the lottery bill. The 

question iie upon the engrossment and third reading of the bill. 

Mr. PRICE. I ask unanimous consent that I may have one minute. 

Several MEMBERS. Let him have it. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits of this bill. I am in favor of the bill. My object in asking 

for this one minute is simply to repel the statement made by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. EVANS] that the morals of the St.ate of 

Louisiana are absolutely under the dominion of the Louisiana Lottery 

Company. He stated that financially, politically, and moralJy the 

Louisiana Lottery Company bas control of the State which I am proud 

to say I was born in and which I am proud to have the honor in part 

to represent upon this floor. It is true that the State of Louisiana was saddled with the lottery by the carpet-bag government. It is also true 

that many of the truest and best men there now believe that it would 

be wise t.o recharter it in order to derive revenue. I want to tell the 

gentleman that 93 per cent. of the revenues derived by that lottery 

company come from without the St.ate of Louisiana. [Applause on the 

Democratic side.] 

Xhe SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

question is on ordering the bill to be engrossed tor a third reading. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. 

The SPEA.KER. The question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was put, and the Speaker announced that the "ayes " 

seemed to have it. 

Mr. HAYES. Division. 

The Honse divided. 

During the count, 

Mr. HAYES. I withdraw the demand for a division. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I insist on the count. I want to show the una· nimity of the vote in favor of this measure. [After a pause.] I withdraw the demand for a count on t.he ground that the apprehension is 

expressed that there may not be a quorum present. 

So the bill was passed. • Mr. HOPKINS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion t-0 reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

PERSOY.A.L EXPLANATION. 

Mr. A.LLEN, of Michigan. I rise to a personal explanation. 

l\Ir. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I move that the House do now adjourn. [Cries of ''Regular order!"] 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michiga.n rises to a question 

of personal privilege? 

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. I rise to a personal explanation, because 

I think I ought to make one. When I left the House on Tuesday last 

I made an arrangement with my colleague [Mr. CHIP.MAN] to pair with 

him. That was the understanding, but by some inadvertence some- where this was not made a matter of record, and consequently he bas 

not been voting. It i! justice to him to state the reason why he did 

not vote, as be supposed he was paired with myself: The RECORD 

does not show that he was; and this, of course, never will be explained 

unless by me, and that is the reason why I make this explanation now. 

DISTRESS IN OKLAHOMA. 

Mr. CA.NNON. I desire to call up the joint resolution appropriating money for the relief of distress in the Territory of Oklahoma; and 

I ask that the request of the Senate for the appointment of a conference committee be complied with, and that conferees on the part of the 

House may be appointed. 

The Clerk read a.s follows: 

Joint resolution to appropriate money for the Territory of Oklahoma, to re- lieve distress tnerein. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on insisting on tbeamendment of 

the House disagreed to by the Senate, and to grant the conference re- quested. 

The motion was agreed to. 

f'• I'• 

' 

, . 
-· 

• .. · . .... _,,. 

8722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 18, 

The SPEAKER announced as conferees on the part of the House Mr. 

HENDERSON of Iowa, l\Ir. CANNON, and lt!r. BRECKnRIDGE of Kentucky . 

.l\fr. Mol\ITLLIN. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

Mr. HOPKINS. I move that the Honse do now adjourn. 

CUSTOl1S DISTRICT OF PGGET SOUND. 

Mr. SWENEY. Mr. Speaker, I present a conference report. 

Mr. McMILLIN. A motion to adjourn is pending. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa presents a conference 

report. 

Mr. McMILLIN. But a motion to adjourn was made before the 

. gentleman presented his report. 

The SPEA_KER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman ta present the 

conference report. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment..'! of the H .use to the bill (8.3163) to reorganize and establish the customs- collection district of Puget Sound, having met, after full a.nd free conference hn.ve agreed to recommend nod do recommend t-0 their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 1, and agree to the same with a-n amendment as follows: Restore the section stricken out and in lieu of the words "four thousand," where they occur in said section. insert the words "three thousand five hundred." That the House recede from its amendment numbered 2. 

JOHN LIND, 

J. H. SWENEY, FELIX O.A.l\1PBELL, 

Managers on tM part of tM House. 

J. N. DOLPH, 

S. M. CULLOM, 

A. P. GORMAN. 

Managers on the pcrrt of the Senate. 

STA..TE.llE-ST OF THE HOUSE CONFEREES. 

The manageni 011 the pa.rt of the House of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3163) to reorganize a.nd establish the customs-collection district of Puget Sound, submit the following written statement in explanation of the effect of the a.ct.ion rec- ommended on said amendments in the accompanying conference report, 

namelv: 

On the first amendment: The salary of the collector is fixed at 83,500 per an- num instead of $-1,000 as provided in the Senate bill and $3,000 a.s proposed by the House. The salaries of the deputy collectors at Tacoma and Seattle are re- spectively fixed at $2,000 per annum instead of leaving the amount to be fixed by the Secretary of the 'l'reasury under the general law as proposed by the House amendment. On the second amendment: The last section of the bill is numbered 4 by rea- son of the insertion of the amendment above explained. . JOHN LIND, .J. H. SWENEY. FELIX CAMPBELL, 

.Managei·s on the part of the House. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on the adoption of the report of 

the conference committee. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I ren€w the motion to adjourn. The report of the conference committee can go into the RECORD, and we can act on it on Monday. 

Mr. SWENEY. I would ask the ''Senator'' from Kentucky if he will 

not yield, for this has been pending for several weeks. 

Mr. Mcl\HLLIN. It can be printed in the RECORD and go over. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I might haveyieldedhadnot 

the gentleman cast that slight upon me by calling me "the Senator 

from Kentucky." The House is much the superior body in the present condition of public affairs, when the Senate is a deliberative body 

and we are not; and I prefer to be in the House, as we can get through 

business. Therefore I renew the motion to adjourn. [Laughter.] 

The question was put, and carried. 

LEA VE OF ABSENCE. 

Pending the announcement of the vote, by unanimous collilent, leav" 

of absence was granted as follows: 

To Mr. UcAnoo, for four days, on account of sickness in his family. 

To l\fr. STIVERS, indefinitely, on account of sickness in his family. 

To Mr. BowDEN, for three days, from Monday next, on account of 

sickness in his family. 

And then (at 4 o'clock and 53 minutes) the House adjourned until 

Monday, August 18, at 12 o'clock m. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered 

ta the Clerk and disposed of as follows: 

Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Pensions, reported with amendment the following bills of the Honse; which were severally referred 

to the Committee of the Whole House: 

A bill ( H. R. 11171) ~ran ting an increase of pension to Ed win Reeder, 

late a member of Company A, First Tennes.see Infantry, in the war with Mexico. (Report No. 2979.) 

A bill (H. R. 10898) to increase the pension of Daniel P. Roberts, 

late a second lieutenant in Company F of the Third Regiment of Missouri Volunteers, in the war with Mexico. (Report No. 2980.) 

Mr. BELKNAP, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

favoiably the bill of the Senate (S. 3927) ·granting a pension to Maria 

E. Baker, accompanied by a report (No. 2981)-to the Committee of the 

Whole Honse. 

Mr. HAYES-, from the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, 

to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 11569) to amend 

certain sections of the Revised Statutes relating to lotteries, and for 

other purposes, in behalf of the minority of said committee, submitted 

his views in writing thereon; which were ordered to be printed as Part 

2 of Report No. 2844-to the House Calendar. 

l\Ir. BELKNAP, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

with amendment the bill of tlle House (H. R. 5093) for the relief of 

Margaret A. Myers, accompanied by a report (No. 2982)-to the Com- mitte~ of the Whole House . 

Mr. DE LANO, from the Committee on Pensions, reported with 

amendment the bill of the House (H. R.11075) for the relief of John B. 

Roper, accompanied by a report (No. 2983)-to the Committee of the 

Whole House. 

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC. 

Under clause 1 of Role XXII, private bills of the following titles 

were presented and referred as indicated below: 

By :Mr. CHEADLE: A bill (H. R. 11767) granting a pension to Lavinia M. Pavne-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By'lli. FUNSTON: A bill (H. R. 11768} to increase the pension of 

George l\fack-to the Committe on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: A bill (H. R. 11769) for the relief of 

the legal representatives of H. Corthes, deceased, of Ballard County, 

Ky.-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama: Abill(H. R.11770)grantinga pension to Benjamin Donnell-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11771)°for the relief of the widow of Asberry G. 

M. Ed wards-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11772)- for the relief of the heirs of William 

Farmer and Jeremiah Farmer-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. WILSON, of MissouTi: A hill (H. R. 11773) granting an increase of pension to Mrs. l\Iary B. Cushing-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. · 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

Under clause 1 of' Rule XXII, the following petitions and papers 

were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: 

By Mr. CARUTH: Resolutions of August Willich Post, No. 132, 

Grand Army of the Republic, of Louisville, Ky., favoring preference 

being given to ex-soldiers: sailors, and marines of the late war in all 

appointments in the civil service-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. FUNSTON: Petition asking that the charge of desertion 

against John Kinchlow be removed-to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

By Mr. JOSEPH: Memorial of the board of county commissionern 

of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, praying for the passage of House 

bill 975, providing for the confirmation of the title to certain lands to 

the town of Albuquerque, N. l\Iex.-to the Committee on Private Land 

Claims. 

By Mr. WILSON, of Missouri: Petition of Mrs. Mary B. Cushing 

and others for an increase of pension for Mrs. Cushing-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

SENATE. 

MONDAY, August 18, 1890. 

The Senate met at 10 o'clock a. m. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BuTLER, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of Saturday last was read and approved. · 

SEN.A.TE CLOCK. 

?\Ir. EDMUNDS. ~Ir. President, I rise to what may be considered 

parUy a privileged motion and partly a petition. Many of ns have 

observed here in the last three or four weeks that our Senate clock, 

which regulates the meeting of the Senate, varies from day to day>ery 

considerably. It is three minutes faster this morning than it was on 

Saturday, and it is a great inconvenience to Senators who wish to attend at the very opening, as most of us I hope do. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Sergeant-at-Arms be instructed to procure, as 

soon as possible, a new and suitable clock to take the place of the one 

we now have. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has been several times 

embarrassed by the eccentricities of the clock. If there be no objection, the Sergeant-at-Arms will be directed to procure a clock tor the use of the Senate in accordance with the suggestion _of tbe Senator 

from Vermont. 

Mr. BLAIR. I suggest that the Sergeant-at-Arms be also directed 

to procure one that will not be liable to the eccentricities of our clock at 

the close of the session.