The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-05-05
Loo Al a TF a 7 u s..
TIE ART UNION LOTTERY CASE.


SupTeme COurt-(sene RAJ Term.
lion. judges Edwards Mitchell and Roosevelt presiding
NAY l-7he People Of The Stafe Of New York os.
-itrahgm u. Co:taS and ofips, Managers Of the
dasaieaa hT Unioa.-Thisis an application upon
made by consent, without action, in accordance
with Section 3s2 of the Code, for order of udg-
rnent Of forfeiture pursuant 10 Section 81, Article 1,
Title g Chapter 10, Part l. of Revised Statutes, OF
certain property offered for dis;rhuton by lot, by
re- ant o, M%qss, q go se rSs
arising Oh the pleadipgs ere three
First. II the mode Of distribution shown by the
case lottery within the meaning of The constitu-
ton Of 1921, Article T. Section III
Second. Ii not lottery within the meaning and
intent Of the constitution, is the said mode Of disr
button in violation Of the general law entitled OF
Railing and Lotteries Article 4, Title y Chapter
20, Part J. Revised Statutes, any of the sections
thereofr'
Third Ifwithin the latter. and not within the for
mer are The defendants authorized, by any special
other law, for that purpose to distribute property
in the manner pointed out in the case
The District Attorney (Mr. N Il. Bunt) then
proceeded to contend that the Art Union has all
the essential elements of u lottery. IL mas prizes
and blanks ticket costing - may draw u prize
of much larger amount. IL distributes. by lot, a
few articles among Thousands of persons. II has
chances ard risks the latter being 10 the former
forty to one. II is emf hatioaliy mere game of
CHARGE 1t is no answer to say that each subscriber
receives something; was IL with lotteries in the
olden time some we're all prizes, but none The less
lotteries. IN 1883. the Legislature abolished all lot
tories in this State, and the Disric. Attorney re-
feIred The Court to Brandts definition Of lottery,
which says, that n lottery is game Of hazard, in
which small sums venturcd for the chance OF
obtaining q larger amount either in money other
articles. He also referred the Court to Webster's
definition OF lottery, and continued to say TINT
out OF the aggregate amount of subscriptions to
the Art Unon-tcn thousand subscribers, at $5
oacL-one half at least ia 10 be expended
in purchasing paintings Of American artists.
They Nave OF course, officers. and from this $4,000
.1nf.4
$5 ,oCO; Of that, 1T least half 20 be expended
in the purchase of paintings of American artists.
For the chance of obtaining Of these paintings,
the subscriber pays 50. 1t is a matter OF no
sequence whether these paintings are worth 50; il
is q matter Of no consequence what are the motives
of The company; II is tho chance il holds out that
constitutes il lottery. | submit, therefore, that
tic American Ant Union is lottery in every sense
Haring merely read tie second point, the District
Attorney proceeded to argue the third point.
This act took effect IN $780, aud in the twenty-socond
section were hcsc words, mo person, &c" We had
then the first clause OF the section containing an
absolute prohibition the part of The Legislature
against permitting the sale disposition Of any such
goods ard chattes to be ralcd for or to be disri-
beted by lot. The case here was, that s. was paid
for chance of obtaining one of the paintings
which was 10 be distributed by lot. He submitted,
therefore, that the first and wonty-second sections
Of the fourth article prohibited the distribution by
that statute by section twenty-sx, every lot,
device. game of chance, by whatever name
called, whether nm art union or a homestead assoc-
alton, public nuisance. Section thirty also
supported this view, which prohibited such corpora
lions. He again referred to the twenty-scyenth Sec
ton. Under that section no person unauthorized By
special law for that purpose, should set foot any
chance or game whatever; for the distribution Of
property. He submitted that this mode Of distr-
button was in direct violation of the law of 1880.
AS to the fourth point, authorizing the distribution
by lottery of works of art belonging TO the Art
Union, the second section of the act of 1874 did
not corter such an authority. To warrant that
+Ea, ntf -.
must be assumed to the extent OF permitting the
American Art Union to distribute b, Let, aud that
the Legislature had repealed, by implication, the
general law. The Court would perceive that tho
second subdivision had traced our three sections
sections ~. So and u. Section 70 declared illegal
every lottery game, by whatever name called,
and should have been authorized by law The Both
section said that " no person, unless authorized by
law then existing that was at the time when
this act was made should offer for sale or dstr
button by lottery" &c 1t did not speak Of the laws
in existence. 1t would seem that it was Len to the
Legislature to pass special law, and to take GER
tain case out of the general statutes. He next ad-
verted 10 the thrty-rst section, under which accrued
the forfeiture Of all the property offered for SALE
distribution, or disposition against the provisions of
the law; that it should be forfeited to the people
Of the State well before as after The determine
ton OF the chances, on which the property was de-
pendent. 1t was quite enough that the sale and
distribution Of the property against the proyi-
sioDs Of the law, whether by game Of hazard--so
terned-or o game Of whist, any other
mode; the moment it was so offered, it be-
came forfeited to the people Of the State.
By the 22d. Both. or 9th sections, tho Art Union
was liable and not excepted. The act Of 1874 was
ted by law. Nothing could be found in the act Of
lS40 that would raise the implication that there was
an authority to distribute works of art by lottery
chance. The Art Union had Incorporated section
in the draft OF their constitution in direct violation
of the law Of the land, created by the third section
of the act They adopted the con sttution because
they had adopted the by laws, which were decaredto
be equally binding as the constitution. and because
by that they had proceeded and might 60 in viola
tion oflaw by distributing by lot They assumed that
when in 1874, the Legislature passed amendatory
act that the second section of that act conferred
them express authority to 60 on in opposition to
power did not rest upon the second section, it
to be found nowhere in the statutes. The District
Attorney then read and commented upon the Ian
guage Of the act, and showed that the Art Union
derived power to insert that section in their act
They did not come within the principles of
existing statutes, but they were com pletcly
at variance with them; He referred to, the
to horse racing, and commented upon their appli-
cation to Queens county and Duchess county
and showed their napplicabiity in principle to that
claimed for them by the Art Union After taking
all this the defendants stood in court as violaors Of
the law, and the whole Of the property offered for
distribution against the provisions Of the law, should
be forfeited to the people Of the State it became
forfeited at the time 1t was offered lie had pre-
viously entertained the view that this institution
was unquestionably legal; bat having had his atten-
ton particularly directed to it by recent circum-
stances he felt he had his duty to perform and that
he was then dischargng it, in asking for the en-
forcement of the law.
Mr.. O'Connor, counsel for the defendants, ros
and presented the following points to the Court, on
their behalf, as follows:--
This is a made by consent for the judgment
Of the court, pursuant to section 372 Of the Code Of
Practice. (Voorhees cd. p. 2Si) IL raises tn
question, whether the Art Union violates any law
of this State by its annual distribution Of paintings
The Art Union originated in voluntary associa-
ton, formed in 1899, for the promotion Of the Gne
arts. This association Incorporated in 1870
The act of Incorporation was amended in 81, and
again in 1917. Abe first distribution took place in
1889: and an annual distribution took place an
nually from that year. until and including the
year 1850. When the distribution for 1851 was
about to take place, the District Attorney of New
York adyisnd lomand Tic r,ict urns int nndnd