National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1873-03-13
TIE GIFT ENTERPRISE.


The subject OF the validity OF the law forbid
ding GIFT enterprises In this District, and OF the
legality Of the process hereunder In the case of
F.C. shaw, convicted In the Police Court OF con.
Quoting such an establishment In this city, came
up before the Criminal Court, on appeal, yester-
day morning.
attorney for the District, appeared In support Of
the decision Of the Police Court, aud Mr.. Ilar-
rngton for the appellant.
TIIE ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Harrington argued that the act Of Con-
gress does not apply to the defendant; that II Is
penal act aud Is TO be construed strictly; that
the words thereafter to engage" plainly denOmi-
mates those VINO commence business after the
passage OF the act, and assuming that Congress
has the right to nulllfy an act Of the District
Government, IL has not done II, and a repeal
takes effect from the approval Of the act, and
can have no retroactive effect upon rights pre-
existing Its passage; and courts Will always con-
struc statute TO be prospective Secondly, that
II In terms II applies TO these, 1t Ia unconstitu-
tlOnal; that the license Is q contract; that when
law amounts TO a proposition and Is accepted
by individuals II Is contract; that under the or
ganlc act the Legislature has authority to make
contracts; that the act Of Congress would impair
the obligation OF a contract; that Congress can
not impaE the obligations OF q contract; that
the Government OF the United States Is one Of
enumerated powers and can only exercise those
powers or slCh as arise by necessary impica-
tion; that Congress cannot take private prop
ery for public use; and that private property
cannot he taken without due process Of law, and
due process Of law means that where rights are
acquired by the citizen under existing law, there
IL no power In any branch Of the Government to
take them away, and by these Il meant q pre-
existing rule Of conduct, and IA q restraint upon
the Legislature as well US upon other branches OF
the Government.
Mr.. Cook argued that the law Of Congress dis
approves and repeats the act Of the Legislature,
and LETT the business without legal support; II
declares the business unlawful, aud after prOyid-
Ing mode Of correction Il provides penalty.
lie then argued at length that the purpose OF the
law was TO break up the business, and this Ia
determined by reference to the words OF the act
and its manifest design.
The court here took a recess.
AFTER THE RECESS.
Upon the court resnning hts seat, Mr.. Cook
took up the thread OF his argument, urging that
this act was not a law lmpalTing the obligation
Of contracts. lie quoted a large number Of an.
thoritles In support Of the view that licenses to
lotteries the sale OF alcoholic liquors, dc, were
not 70 De considered as contracts between the
individual and the Government, but merely as
methods by which the Government exercises It's
power Of police regulation.
As the General Government In this district
possessed plenary powers OF legislation, its en-
actment suppressing these lotteries was the law,
because the license which had been grated TO
this lottery was merely permiSsion, subject,
for grave reasons OF public policy, to revocation
at the discretion Of the Legislature.
MI. HARRISGTONS REPLY.
Mr.. Harrington said THIS was test case, and
a most important one, All the plety wasted In
his argument might have heen utilized II applied
10 the Governor aud the Legislature which ar-
thNrized the establishment Of these gift enter
pHses, which were but the ofshOOt Of the raf-
lies and grab games that made money TO build
our churches, But far more important than all
this was II that the principles, old as English
liberty, declared In magma charter that no man
should be deprived OF his property without due
process Of law. The only question here was
whether license granted by the Government
was contract. Mr.. II. argued this question at
some length.
The Court said that the argument and author
tiles quoted had satisfied nun that license
was not contract.
Mr.. Harrington then proceeded TO argue that
even II license be resCinded, yet all the rights
which had vested while the license was il essc
must he protected.
The Court held that the law was valid, and
Deeh properly executed Dht as thls was merely
test case, as the business had been conducted
under the Impression that II was protected by
license he would. direct verdict Of guilty, bnt
Impose but nominal nne.
The defendant was then found guilty and
nned 81.