New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-01-29
MONDAY MORNING, JANUARY 20, ls66--TRIPLE SHEET.

or authority for making them within twenty-four I
hours: and also requiring Recorders to examine |
cases promptly. Referred TO the Judiciary Com
mittee.
Mr. samboIa introduced bill for the relief Of
T. F. Rechard. Referred to the Committee on
Claims.
Mr.Waker asked reconsideration OF the Dill
to repeal the act giving to the company for the
construction of steamboat canal from VermIilion
lake to Sabine river grant of swamp lands. Mr..
Walker said he had received information from the
parties interested, which, if before the House,
might change its decision, and he did not regard
it as right to condemn any one without hearing.
The House refused to reconsider.
THE LOTTERY LICENSE BILL.
Mr.. Fenner's bill, as reported by the Committee
on Charitable Institutions, with amendments,
| came up as the order of the day. When the
House adjourned from its consideration yesterday
these amendments were under discussion, viz:
| 1st. Proposed by Mr.. Kent, to divide the excess
over $50, 600, appropriated to the Charity Hospi-
tal between the Deaf and Dumb Asylum at
Baton Rouge and the Insane Asylum at jackson.
I'd. Proposed by Mr.. Mcconnell, to appropriate
the whole excess above the sum assigned to the
Charity Hospital to fund for the relief of Grip
| pled soldiers and the widows and orphans Of
deceased soldiers, to be distributed under the law
i introduced by Mr. Nelligan at the extra session
4 for the relief of that class of citizens.
Sd. Prop osed by Mr.. Elan to place all the reve
nue. from these licenses in the State Treasury. to
be appropriated by the Legislature according to
its discretion, from year to year. s
The question pending was a motion to lay Mr..
Eam's amendment on the table. l.7i .-s5s
After some discussion as to point of order, the
question was put and the motion prevailed Yeas
42, nays 40.
] Tie Chair decided that the next amendment in
order was that of Mr.. Mcconnell, which as sub
!, stitute, if adopted, the amendment of Mr.. Kent
would be killed.
Mr. Elan suggested that Mr.. McConnell's sub
/ stitute was drawn up under the supposton that
Mr.. Nelligans bill had become law, but such was
not the fact, and he, Mr.. E., proposed to amend
the substitute by simply providing that she excess
+ over $4,000, should constitute a fund for the
relief of MANNED soldiers and the widows and or
phans of deceased soldiers, to be disposed as the
Legislature may see fit to enact hereafter.
: The House accepted the amendment and, thu
e amended, the substitute was adopted-yeas 6s
: nays IL.
Mr. Fenner, to obviate the possibility suggested b.
Mr. Scanlan of the bill being considered as author
!, izing the establishment and drawing of lotteries il
the State, introduced an additional section, ex
J, pressly denying such authority, and the amend
ment was adopted.
e The rules having been suspended and the b
= put upon its final passage,
Mr.. McEnery addressed the House in opposition
d to it. He contemplated with horror the idea {
% Louisiana Legislature deliberately debaucllin
~ the public morals, and such would be the effect
4 this measure. Theyswere there to restrain vice
4 not to encourage it by sanctioning and legalizn
le a species of gambling. It was well known thi
IN his views on such subjects as this were not Co
n tracted or puritanic but he deemed it the duty
IN every man who had the interest of his country
ne heart to resist the passage OF law the infuent
Sc of which would be undeniably to undermine publ
IS morals. However worthy the charities propose
'e. to be relieved might be- or. however great the
he necessities, he could not lend himself to the lega
ar izng of an immoral practice.
% Mr.. Waggaman fully agreed with the gentlema
:, who had just spoken, as to the duty of the lay
- making power to conserve public morals, b,
there were certain vices which it had been four
o' impossible to suppress, and this was one. SUI
~ laws as that under consideration were co mmon
- - older and more experienced communities ths
~ ours. Throughout Europe gambling was license
~ because it had been found impossible TO suppre
u it, and even the very lowest stage of human de
L, radiation had been made source of revenue al
m -. was subjected to legal regulations for the sar
- reason.
I'll Mr.. Fenner concurred with Mr.. McEnery in
=. views as to the duties of the law MAKER but
(Mr. F.) did not regard it as just to classify t
\, sale of lottery tickets with gambling, as the wo
-. ~ was generally used. According to strict moi
-, analysis lotteries were undoubtedly gambling b
~ - not that gambling which excited intensely and
,II to disastrous eXcesses. Nor did public opini
= condemn the purchase of lottery ticket,
~ while no one was ashamed to buy or sell su
- tickets, the votary of more serious gambling
~ dulged his passion secretly. Public opinion "
49, SO ndulgent on the subject of lotteries that
49, law for their suppression was found inoperati'
and as the government of the United States tax
. the sale of tickets and thereby legalized
traffic. it was doubtful if the States could preve
~: it. The bill neither created nor increased vi
ats but recognizing facts as they existed, made
s traffic which it had been found impossible to $,
press contribute to the support of great chariti
,cb Mr. Bailey regarded this bill as key to unlc
to the door for gambling by legislative sanction.
ed admitted the great claims of the Charity Hospit
AL and was fully sensible of the magnitude of
Ial- benefits, but good purpose could not justify
and bad act. The argument shat because lottery til
cts were vended in contempt of law the ira
lief should be legalized was sophstical for the sa
ing argument would apply to many other vicious pr
ate tees, and would result in general principle t
bev wheneverlaws were not enforced against offend
the they should be repealed. The neglect Of pull
officers was no reason that the statute bot
lew should sanction immortality. Nor was this
sas. only objection as lotteries were allowed in
st. State all the proceeds Of the sale of tickets W
abroad to the impoverishment of our own peoE
the Mr.. Tucker also opposed the bill. He wo
bills not encourage immortality The lawmaker sho
nks be aconservator ofpublic morals and not temp
that to vice. If the law had not been entirely succt
ful in suppressng the sale of lottery tickets, it
peal least, operated as check with the conscienti
ct citizen. Nor should condemnation of vice
Sa- eXpunged from the statutes because public
sus wants failed to enforce the law. The proper cou
ond was to punish the derelict officer and not to sa
ton immortality. Mr.. I. did not think the laws
the the United States denied the right of prohibit
aled the sale of lottery tickets. AS he understood
lred law it taxed the sale of tickets but did not lice
e at the traffic anywhere. He objected also that, al
Ia tota fo,