The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-13
THE LOTTERY BUSINESS.
Interview with arr Eminent Lawyer-iiOw
the Fraud Can BE sGuelcIled.

the Fraud Can BE sEuelcheI.
On account Of the Importance Of the lottery
question at this time, DEMOCRAT reporter
called ON Mr.. Hutcheson, who has for some
time been prominently connected with the
lottery litigation In the State and Federal
courts of this city, to learn from him the
points relied on to defeat the Louisiana State
Lottery Company.
Reporter-As much public interest Is now
felt concerning the lottery company and the
best means Of getting rid of it, l would like to
have your views upon the legal questions in
volved, for the readers Of the DEMOCRAT.
Mr.. Hutchinson Considering that the ques-
tion has become an interesting public one.
have no objection to give all the aid | can to
the formation of correct opinions with view
to some decisive action, although never dis
| cuss my cases in the newspapers Or outside
my office. Ny connection with the lottery
al, but feel free to say that my sympathies
are entirely with that class OF citizens who
are anxious to suppress the lottery business
| in all it's FORMS as far as practicable; II this
be not to grant an exclusive license or. char
ter, as 1T s falsely called) to any particular
person OF. persons to carry on the business,
| but should aim to make the sale OF lottery
/ tickets, and the establishment Of all kinds Of
lotteries, source OF revenue TO the State
| levying the tax with q view to the protection
of the public and the suppression Of the vice.
There are three methods by which this
| Company may be overthrown, any one OF
which would be equally effective.
l. The Legislature has the right to repeal
the charter, or. to, speak more correctly, the
and organized. AS general rule, 1t is true
that the charter of q private corporation Is u
contract which the courts will protect, which,
indeed ere protected by me CONSERVATION haa n Q,
application to cases where The police power
OF the State over any Of the subjects which
affect the welfare of society Is involved. On
these subjects one Legislature Is the equal OF
every every other Legislature, and it is not consti
tutionally competent for one Legislature by
any act it may pass to tie up the hands
Of any subsequent Legislature upon any SUBJ
ject-rnatter Of legislation that affects the pub
lie policy and police regulation OF the State.
There are no vested rights In such cases. In
case Of repeal, If the Lottery Company or their
so-called lessees or assignees should under,
take to maintain their charter on the ground
of contract with the State, both the Supreme
Court of this State and of the United States,
in my opinion, would sustain the position J,
have taken, because the best authority is al
in its favor. have studied the question With
, much care, and don't think | can be mistaken
The Supreme Court Of the United States has,
in fact, already substantially decided the ques-
Otto, though the precise point have indicated
was not made in the record OF that case.
[ would say from the examination | have
given the subject, that act No: %, OF 1858,
creating this Lottery Company, Is obnoxious
) to three constitutional objections:
i. The act, although not prohibited by the
constitution in express terms, Is in excess OF
legitimate legislative power, being contra
} which society and governments are formed.
O. 1t Is an attempted surrender or delega-
ton for the period Of twenty five years Of the
!, police power OF tn, State over the matter OF
lotteries to private corporation.
8. 1t is an exemption Of the property and
, effects OF this company from the equal and
!, uniform rule OF taxation required by the con-
! stitution OF the State.
: is in the hands Of any sutton. against whom
an action may be brought in the State or FED
eral courts for violating the pretended rights
, of this company, In which action IL is comipe-
; Or demurrer to set up all the objections nave
, mentioned, or any others that may De sug-
. gested against the charter Of the company.
!. sisted listed by the Hon ii n Ogden, now Attorney
:, General, the Gonzales case) which was
, brought in the Sixth District Court in 1879,
> but which was transferred to the United
. States Court OH the ground that Mr.. Gonzales
! was an alien, with a view to have Justice
v Bradley pass on the questions which / raised
/. in the exceptions. Before Bradley came the
d case was fixed for trial before Dnreli After
the argument of the questions Of law, and be,
}, fore the case went to the jury, the counsel
, for the Lottery Company had the case dis
l. missed
: NV object then was, in the event that Judge
Durel ruled against us, to take the case to the
r, Supreme Court Of the United States on WITH
g of error.
The shortest and simplest way TO get rio :, OF
this thing is in suit for forfeiture OF Ine
charter. There are two very clear causes 1ol
forfeiture.
In the first place it was not constitutionally
competent for the Legislature to enact this
: infamous law, for the reasons have. given.
= In the second place the company has clear 4,
>, " abused and rnsused it's franchises within
the meaning of the Civil Code (article 43sl, as
h clearly appears from the article In the Dem
: ocRAT of this morning. But as this is mat
> ter for the Attorney General, who is abundant
!. ;, " able and doubtless willing to protect the
interests Of the State and It's people In this as
o in all other matters committed to his hands,
l. do not deem it necessary to enlarge upo1
10 this branch of the subject But, whatevel
10 method that may be adopted to fight this cry
y ing shame upon Louisiana, | have no doubt
x but one voice will come up from all honest
n and decent citizens, Delenda est Carthage.