New-York tribune., 1867-02-07
LOTTERY LAW.


There ia a wide difference between Judge
Ingraham's recent charge to his Grand jury,
and Justice Ledwitb's decison-each affecting
the subject of Lotteries. This difference con-
stitutes that professional gulf which interyenes
between such judicial establishment as the
Court of Oyer and Terniner and such law
bazaars as our Police Courts. A common
sense opinion on any important legal topic
whatever is not to be too readily expected of
the latter. Those who understand what
chance game--we will not say of legal faro
the justice of our Police Courts is, so far as
the public are concerned, will not be sur
prised at any decision emanating therefrom
in favor of Lotteries. Judge lngraham's
charge is the very reverse OF this. IL Is I'M
portant as very timely rebuke of the legal
nonsense put forth by the Dogbeuy and Verges
of the Police Court.
Contrary to the latter Oracles, Judge lngraham
believes that the law prohibiting any lottery,
game or device Of chance for "the purpose of
"seling ordisposng of houses, lands, real estate,
"money, goods, or things in action" is as
applicable to the present gift enterprises as TO
anything else. The Judge quotes the case OF
gift enterprise the American Art Union, wherein
the Chief-Justic held: "We should be trifling
"with and perverting the language of the Con-
"stitution il we were to say that IL is not q
"lottery within its prohibition There was no
need to reproduce this opinion in explanation of
the law except for the benefit of such ImschOOled
attorneys as Assistant District Attorney Bedford.
The law is unmistakable in what lit specifies
and prohibits; and it is wonder that even
Police Justice, aided by an Assistant District
Attorney, who has learned to blunder with more
or less hardihood at the feet Of Mr.. Oakley
Hall, could mistake it. No matter how religious
or patriotic may be the object Of certain
lotteries, all are alileel prohibited.
But Mr.. G. S. Bedford, jr., Assistant District
Attorney and legal adviser to Mr.. Justice Led
with, has been rash enough to differ not only
with the Chief-Justice and Judge Ingraham
but with common sense and the dictionary.
District Attorneys have done this before; Mr.
Hall has shaken his opinions like red rag in
the face OF the law but none have gone fur
ther in absurdity than Mr.. Bedford. In the
case of the lottery in aid of the NewYOrk Hos
pital (what else shall we call it? Mr.. Bedford
gives it rs his opinion that it is no lottery at
all. "a lottery" he proceeds to say, sis where
"mOney.is won by the chance drawing of num-
"bcrs, and where there arc prizes and blanks.
''This is a distIbution-there is no Chance
"every ticket drawing prize of moro or less
"vaue. 1t il not chance scheme" Else
where n correspondent has taken the trouble to
give all the authoritative definitions of the
word and we need not observe that they are
unanimously opposed to the stand Mr.. Bedford
has taken against the dictionary. With both
lawyers and photographers against him, the
claim of Mr.. Bedford to consideration as The
adviser of even a Police Justice is small. We
cannot say what turn of the lottery has given
us Mr. Bedford for District-Attorney: bnt
we arc very sure that We have not drawn a