National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1872-12-09
GIFT ENTERPRISES.
TRIAL OF THE PHOTOGRAPH MEN.
Thirty Days In Jail and One Hundred Dol
lars FInc-OpInIan or Judge smell,

In the Police court before duuHc sinful ~ 'ut
cases were all similar Mr.. Minors was taken up
as O test case. Mr.. Richard Harrington, assist
ant district attorney, appeared for the prosecu-
ton, and Messrs. \. q. Riddle and l.. q. Hlnc for
the defence.
The defendant was arraimcd AMI pleaded not
guilty.
Mi Harrington sail that this had been called
az a test ease. There was no desire TO nave tue
full penalty imposed In case VI conviction, hut
should the United StAtea prove true case, The
tim will suspend business. On the other hand,
II the United states fails, then the o'her cases
Inc Goyernmcnt would attempt to show that
Mr. Minor kept . place Of business az No, Bli
seventh street, within the District Of Columbia,
That at this place Of business he eNhlhiteu tot
sale certain photograph cards which he sold Of
the price Of 70 cents each, with the UNDERSTANDING
that he would give TO each purchaser the amount
named on the back Of the can't and that he did
sell NJ divers times these carts, aud that the In
trinsic value Of them was four cents each.
Mr.. Hine said they were articles OF MERRIAM
iise, valued at e. or ~ per dozen.
Mr. Riddle stated thai Mr.. Minor was the regu-
lar proprietor Of the place, for the privilege OF
opening which he had paid 81 900 license.
The counsel between them attempted to agree
on form In which to present the case, hut hnally
concluded to proceed In the regular way, and
Detective George MCEtresh was sworn. Knew
Mr. Minor hy sight; was In his store about De-
CembeT 4; had seen parties buying photograph
cards; they were arranged In racks on the side OF
the building; the clerks have cue, which the
narties take and point ont the card they want,
and il Is given 10 them on paving dfty cents; II
there IL any amount marked on the back the
clerk calls II out, and It Is paid over; did not
Know the value Of the carls; had bought some Of
them himself AMI drew several dollar prizes,
hOuRht flb worth, aud was about that much out
when he stopped PLAYING; Detective McDeVlu
and witness went there together, and the former
drew blank; some Of the cards were blank on
the hack; II there was ANYTHING marked on the
hack the drawer received the amount and the
carl.
BY Mr.. Riddle: II was an open business. No
question was ever made about talrlN paving
the amount called for on the back OF the cards.
Had no knowledge Of any complaint ever being
made against the place as disOrlcrly Did not
know what proportion Of the carls had figures
marked upon them. Purchased tlh worth OF Mr..
Minor when he kept on Nlnth street.
nv Judge Smell; In expanding that amount
could not say how many blanks were drawn.
By Mr.. Riddle: Did not purchase them by the
row; bought where he Thought there was money
Mr.. Riddle submitted the license Of Mr.. Minor,
which was received In evidence; also q regular
lottery ticket, showing the working Of scheme.
The sign-bOarl was then offered In evidence.
There were four columns on the right and LETT
sides, Those on the right side were headed by q
! $40 figure, and those on the left by g. figure,
| between the two rows were the following wOnls:
| 'Thc largest number on this board at the right
! represents the number Of = prizes, on the left
the number Of $40 prizes, still remaining marked
| on the carls."
Mr.. Hlie called the attention Of the court to
the act Of Congress Of 1884, prohibiting the traic
! in lottery tickets In this District, and said
| whether ihIs was q lottery or not remained for
| the courts to decide, hut that Congress had de
| nned the distinction between lotteries and gift
I enterprises, by the act Of June, 1884, and this
was the rule of construction given TO them by
courts. Congress had conferred upon the Dis
/ tTiCt the right OF controlling business IN THIS
| District reseTvlng a supervising power. This
! Legislature had passed an act governing and
licensing these establishments, and these places
. offer for sale a merchandise with an implied
promise OF something else In the way Of gift.
Mr.. Riddle wished the court to consider that
the act OF 1854 assessed tax on the lottery
dealers and repealed the act Of lst2 as an lncon-
! slstent law, and there was no crime In this Dis
trict even for the sale Of lottery tickets.
Mr.. Harrington said that the question, whether
the internal revenue tax law repealed the law Of
] ls42, was the point. lie did not maintain that II
the act nf 1884 repealed that OF lst2, and the
former was subsequently repealed, they would
. revert 10 the Old law Several States now have
/ lotteries. II was not In the power of Congress
to legiaate these lotteries out OF the States but
/ Il was In their power to tax them, and by this
| act they did not permit them, but taxed them
] simply for the purpose OF raising revenue.
] The license obtained under this District, as
/ Stunning the law OF Congress to he In force, did
not recognize lotteries, although they might tax
! them. n Congress had gwen the District the
| power TO repeal It's laws II was imperative I'M
| 'leT the Constitution. The question was whether
this was lottery or gift enterprise. lie then
cited numerous authorities TO prove that the two,
. although different In name, were similar In ma
ture and amenabe TO law.
! Mr.. Riddle followed, and said that there was no
/ intention Of violation OF law, and there was
| the best reason for the fOrbeaHnce exercised In
the case by the Officers of the Govern
ment. lie cited the law Of the District, which
for the SUN OF 81, 900 authorized the opening and
keeping Of gift enterprises, and thought that II
was pretty cool for the Officers OF the Govern
ment, In the face Of this statute, to come In and
say for this you must pay us tl,OOD and suffer the
penalty Of thirty days In jail. II this was law
he was astOnlshed To ind how little he knew OF
II. II this District had the right 10 license this
| business, they had the right 10 control II. lie
| believed there was not the ghost Of Il shadow OF
law for this prosecution, aud felt confident Of
| convincing the court Of that fact. lie then cited
I various opinions to substantiate his ideas.
Judge Smell then delivered the following de-
! cislOn;
Is charged with Keeping place Of business for
selling lottery tlcEets and selling lottery tickets
| In violation Of an existing law OF the United
States In force IN the District OF Columbia passed
August d. 1872.
The defendant answers by q license from the
authorities Of the District OF Columbia, Issued In
. conformity with an act OF the District Assembly,
permitting him to conduct the business Of gift
enterprise In the District. See acts INST session
District Legislative Assembly, section 81, page 20.
A conflict Of law arises In this case, presenting
/ several important questions and were this a
court OF last resort II would he necessary To give
each point raised the most careful consideration.
Rut, ~ II IL not and the errors here can he
speedily corrected above, and as II has been
. agreed that other cases pending shall await the
anal decision Of the supreme Court upon the
questions Of law Involved, will pass immediately
upon the points raised In this trial, for the pur-
pose Of promoting an early determination Of
matters important to this community.
II this enactment Of the District Assembly II
valid, aud legullEea what has been prOhibitrd by
the act Of Congress heretofore referred TO, then
the defendants license Is sufficient defence;
otherwise, not.
Prior to the creation Of territorial government
| for the District Of Columbia, Congress possessed
! the exclusive RIGHT OF Legislation, And IT, laws
made In pursuance Of the National Constitution
were herein the supreme law; and suCht hey mnst
remain, unless repealed or supersedel In some
Constitutional mode by other enactmehts.
by reference TO the organic act We nnh the
! grant OF legislative powers to the new govern
ment limited In Kind and degree, the last nita-
ton being expressed by the following language:
"And nothing herein shall he construed TO de-
priye Congress Of the power NJ legislation over
said District In a. ample ma inner Us II this law
the organic law1 had not heCn enacted.
The right Of revision OF District legislation Ia
. also expressly secured so that the legislative
powers Of this government, while very consider
ably enlarged, In comparison with those possessed
by the former corporations, are materially less
than those Of a state, and appTeClably different
/ from those Uf other Territories, for the reason
that the national Government must necessarily
preserve and maintain intact It's sovereign pOWeTa
/ over the District as the capital seat.
! The District government IA subordinate 70 the
national, a. the minor municipal governments IN
| a state are subordinate To the superior Ntate
/ government. II Ia familiar Constitutional law
! that 80 far az the constitution and laws OF n
State are Tcpugnant to the Constitution and
laws Of the United States they are absolutely
| void tCOhen W. Virginia, Wheaton r., p, 4lI ]
| II follows unayOdahly, II clear relugnancy Is
! established between an act OF the legislative
! Assembly Of this quasi Territory and law Of
! the United States, the former must yield To the
! paramount law, and II void But II Is urged
| with considerable confidence, that Congress has
legaliEed both "Rlft enterprises and lotteries" by
| the revenue acts VI 1854, having given elahOrate
| definitions and imposed license taxes on both,
| II Ia replied that these acts were acts OF rev.
enue, and designed to apply to states where lot
teries and gift enterprises were authorized under
| State laws; and further, that these revenue acts