The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-03

a fine Of not less than 500 nor more than $4,000
upon any person setting up or CARRYING on 9
lottery. or concerned in setting up or CARRYING
tute remains unrepealed. Under this statute
the defendant tsoyo) was indicted in the city
a lottery without legi siative authority and was
convicted and sentenced 10 pay a nne Of $1,000.
On appe al to the Supreme Court of the State the
ienlant admitted that he had been engaged in
settling up and carrying on q lottery in he city
OF Mobile. but Claimed License for that pur,,
the persons named therein. and the State adj
mited that the d PENDANT had paid the money
in November of the previous year and that the
acts with which he was charged were done UNI
der the statute and would be legal y me statute
| ,1hs constitutional. and 1t was not subsequently
/ repealed.
The case was carried to the Supreme Court
Of the United States, upon writ Of error and
the court affirmed the decision Of The Supreme
Court Of Alabama. In rendering their opin-
ion the Supreme Court Of the United States.
through Mr.. Justice Field, said:
The questions presented for our eonsidera-
ton relate to the consttutionality OF the act of
| above referred to- and he effect upon The 7ight
orpripiteoe there conferred Of the rfpeati,g act of
1871. The defendant contends that The right or
privilege TO set, up and carry on lotteries in the
state. conferred by the act. re- ts on a con- ract
OF the state. a consideration being given for Its
Treasury. and that the repeating act cannot
therefore impair It. Ia consequence OF pre-
state. constituting the at as creating q contract
with the persons therein named the defendant
further contends that the State is estopped from
denying Its .constitutionality.
!, It is the province of the Supreme Court of
the State to construe Its own constitution and
laws and when It decides that one of Its laws
Is not authorized by It's constitution, 1t is not
for us TO deny the correctness of the decision,
when there is no evasion in this way OF Federal
authority.
The act of 1868 being unconstitutional, the
contention Of the defendant that It constitutes q
meet the Indictment, founded 1 upon d statute STAT
confessedly constitutional In the best way he
These views dispose Of the case and require
an affirmance. Of the. Judgment but before
closing this opinion 1t 10 proper to make one or
two observations to prevent misconstrnetion:
tts prosecuting officer TO admit that H. the
statute OF 1858 were constitutional. and had not
been bee repealed the acts charged against the de-
considered as adopting this conclusion because
We have not called 1t in question The OBJ
opinion of the Supreme Court of the State |
strikes us as worthy OF serious consideration |
4! and he says, after commenting upon the facts,
affirm that the Statute. even Ii there were no |
doubt as to its constitutionality. authorized the
setting up OF the lottery in this case: and
2. We are not prepared to admit that it is COM
petsnt for Legislature. by any contract Nth an
individual to restrain the po,1er Of subsequent
Legislature TO lepislnte fol, the public ,oel fare and
% that end 70 suppress any and all practices tend
ING TO corrupt The public morals. tSee Moore w. |
The State. 4s Miss. Reps. lat; METROPOLITAN |
Board of Excise vs.. Barrie. "a New York Reps. |
663)
It must be conceded that, If the doctrines |
taught by these authorities are sound the
charter OF the Louisiana Lottery Company Is
radically defective and may be lawfully re-
pealed by the Legislature. Further, that
under the police power exercised by that
body there Is no law to prevent at this time
The passage of penal statute prohibiting the
sale Of lottery tickets by the Louisiana Lot
terry Company or any other corporation. The
police power of State cannot be delegated
TO corporations or individuals in manner to
prevent the Legislature from regulating it in
such manner as that body in it's wisdom
leems fit and proper.