The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-03-23

vice OF the Art Un0n who dcosos that for each year
bep, Governors ofthe State Chancelors, Vice Chan
cell0rs Judges Of the Supreme Court and Judges in
the Courts ofRecord; that Of Andrew Warner one Of
the Committee Of Managers ~ to tho faithful exc
cution Of the duties entrusted to them, and the
proper appropriation Of tho funds; and that Of John
f. Trow, who dsposes to . conversation had with
Mr. Il. M. Hoe, from whom plaintiff had purchased
his certificate Of membership, in which Hoe stated
that he did not expect to draw prize as he never
had any luck. Mr. O'C0nor also read, by consent
of the opposite COUNSEL from the Art Union Bulletin,
of April, 1851. paper purporting to be history
of the plan and position of the Art Union written
by Mr.. Erastus G. Benedict who has been connected
with it as o manager since itsIfoundaton, and the
facts set forth in which would be verified by the
affidavit Of Mr.. Benedict
went on with his argument. The question he sub
mtted was whether the distribution by lot, which
was announced intended to DO made by the
American Art Union, is . violation of the laws OF
this State. and whether such it ought to be pre-
vented and whether the putting of property for dis
tribution by lot or gamo Of chance, comes within
the prohibition of such laws. He should endeavor
to prove that such was violation OF the laws, and
that the apologies attempted to be urged on the
other side were allacious, and entirely inefhcaclous
to take it out of the operation thereof In support
of his argument, he referred first to the provision
of the Revised Statutes of 1880, page Coo The 22d
pose any money or goods to be rallied for
to any persons who shall have paid, or
contracted to pay, any valuable consideration for
the chance of such money or goods" Now, have
the Art Union held out to any person that there
to be chance OF obtaining portion OF property in
this way as reason for the money to be so paid.
If so they have taken the first step towards consti
tuting it lottery. The agreement with their sub
scrbers is "f you pay $5 this year you shall have
chance, by means of public lottery, Of receiving n
work of art which may be Of the value of thousand
you have chance of receiving value far beyond the
price you pay. Section rs provides that every lot
terry, game, device Of chance, in the nature of
lottery by whatever name it may be called
other than those which have been authorized
by law, will be deemed unlawful. The 9th
section provides that no person unauthorized shall
set on foot, promote, or deal in any lottery, game,
or device OF chance Of nature kind whatsoever
for the purpose Of selling disposing of any lands,
tenements, houses, orreal estate, or money goods,
or things in action; and on conviction thereof the
person offending shall be subject to fine equal
to the amount of the whole sum value so set up,
or to fine of 81 500, or to imprisonment. Thus
the law renders illegal anything in the nature of
lottery by whatever name it may be called, other
than such have been, not such shall be- deemed
lawful. And the question here is whether this is
not n lottery game device Of chance, by tickets
on the face OF which inducements are held out for
persons to become interested in the
citation ; whether there is not held out an
inducement the chance of obtaining part of the
property, greater in value than the amount contri
buted by each individual and which greater value is
to be contributed by the funds of others Is not this
part of the inducements in the machinery, by
which this institution processes to carry out its OBJ
jects9 However benign, praseworthy, and patriotic
its objects may be, if it is invading the laws in the
prosecution of these ohects-f it is violating the
public policy Of the STATEN holding out inducements
of gambling nature; and however it may have been
hitherto sanctioned by judges, c0unsellors clergy
men and lades-the highest authority-to a very
great extent; and if public attention is for time
as well as immoral consequences involved in it are
pointed out, and that the law be properly vindcated
there is reason to doubt that the evil itself shall
cease. If this institution can be carried on lawfully
/ ] cooperate with it as cordially as any other
| citizen; but if it is carried on for the purpose
Of getting contributions, and holding out induce
ments to speculate in chance-which nducement as
experience has proved, consists in the estimate
which mankind always form in respect to the pro-
liabilities Of their attaining some particular end at the
expense Of others less fortunate than themselves
and if requires that element to carry the work,
let that work cease. If the enlightened public spirit
| will not lead citizens to make such small con-
trbuions as this institution solcits, without gamb
ling. then | say let the institution perish 1t is
better that it should perish than that public policy
strongly marked in this State, that it has been
established part of our fundamental laws-should
be subvcrted. Mr.. Sanford then reviewed and COM
battcd the arguments ngenously put forward in the
| paper read from the cart Bulletin" April 1851. All
bis arguments rest this allacy-that there is no
mode of giving parties who have common proper
| (which is ndiyisible their respective interests
herein except by having recourse to lotteries.
! Court-Suppose the whole $4,000 subscribers,
| when assembled on the day fixed for the distribu-
ion. agreed that the property should be disposed of
/ by lot. would that he legal
Mr.. enthusiastically not. They are prohi-
bited by law. It would not be competent to put up
I the property to be determined by lot. because the
law prohibits that mode of distribution But say
besides that. the property is acquired for this pur
pose. and the distribution is but part of the entire
schemes and that parties are drawn in by the idea
Of its being gambling association, in which they
have chance OF gain beyond that of the money
which they put to hazard. But to suppose even
the case of parties who hold land in common,
and come together on particular day and say.
eve have each Of Us fourteenth part Of this house
and let Us set up the whole to be won by lot one
OF us" Now. that is against the law and the mere
putting IT up to be disposed Of in such way
though not acquired for that purpose. is neither
legal nor moral mode, any more than sitting
down and playing stakes-no matter whether BY
means Of dice, Or drawing names, OF playing cards
The result is exactly the same The Art Union
then. is lottery scheme for the distribution of
prizes. by selling tickets which will he evidences of
certain rights. aS well Of chance which is
made part Of the inducement to buy the ticket
Richardson, in his dictionary. saws that :. lot
Is applied To anything used 70 decide de-
telmine to bring TO light thing unknown and
shat the word lottery is never used in the same
sense rs the word allotment. and Webster says the
same thing This is not. therefore. an '.allotmcnt'
which gives share and portion to each individual
concerned: but when the mode OF distribution is 10
give the whole TO few. and nothing to the many.
that ~ lottery. And we say. therefore. that the
proposed distribution is device of chance and lot
terry. ana plainly illegal Counsel, in confirmation
OF his argument. cited the case Of the people "
Stmderant. reported in % Wendell. us and i20:
me people " Charles. DEMO. 3I2 the people ys.
fahe: the people W. Taylor Sc. He commended
also that the majority Of the Legislature when char
tellng the institution, were not aware OF the moe
Of distributing.
tourt--When al act has been obtained traudu.
entiy " the suppression Of material facts can il be
alleged ~ civil suit that the act l. void on that