The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-07
lpanded by public policy as other acts OF limita-
tion which have received the sanction oil this

pganded b public policy g other acts Of limita
ton which have received the sanction oil this
court.
To the same effect and more directly, per
haps, is a case determined by the Supreme
Court Of Mississippi, and reported In the 4stl
Miss Reports, under the title Of Moore vs
The State. The following Is the syllabus d
points there decided
L The policy OF the state OF KItssfssippf, even
before the present constitutional prohihitio
has always been AGAINST lotteries. prohibiting
| and furnishing them ns a species OF gaming
O. corporation, amthoria d by its charter on
| the payment Of bonus OF 5000 to the eta e. and
payment of 2 certain uetcentage Of It's profits
70 carry on the 10 tery business in the Slate for
Il ss na5 o psetea By The Sons
tion o. franchise. because lotteries, being In
furious to public morals cannot be made sub.
| ieet of q contract and q chartered franchise to
carry on nt'eries stands on a different footing
from charters granted for any Legitimate pur-
), Authority to raise money bv y,t,eri.s ar +.
| cell sp'rltuous liquors Ia not projected by the
gtohibtion IN the constitution. OF the United
raas ffn no sanrp ,b a se ion Of
ton to restrain the police power Of the States In
| the presetvati n Of pub lie morals.
nal police, the Legislative power Of the States is
nnanGted ~ That elane q The eonstitntIon Of
fracts.' While the States may hot reneal or
n1aterlally alter charters to promote charities.
e sa,e n ln ,s established by pr
moral Dartmouth toeee vs. Woodward t,t i.' !
surrender the duty which Is parpetually upon
u 70 consult the physical and moral good OF the
people g, t0ooley's Constit. Limitations, 5eel
.. state, whether making organic law or
pa sing ordinary Legislative acts, cannot In
fringe upon the inviolabiity, Of contracts, but
J. =. anchses or licenses which prove to be in
furious to morals. and q snare to the ignorant,
such Tor example as a lottery compan u are not
contracts under the prohibition
aue c TO be mas IN ey he
Tor 81 years upon the preliminary payment Of a
ofh,nn h9nhs ana oomplianee with certain
and the conditions all rerfprme by the corpo-
rators. The constitu ion Of 1869 forbade ali lot
Ieriesi The corporators, claiming that their
uhued exercise and their agent was indicted
and convicted ., The defendant brought error
anu the judgment was affirmed
Where the question to be determined ia
whether lottery charter granted before the
present constitution was abtogated by the con-
81 the charter, need not be resored to- but will
DE disposed OF by Indictment
There is another decision equally direct on
the point and equally strong that of tho
metropolitan Board Of Excise vs. Barrie. "a
N. \. 66a. The head note is as follows
The necessary powers of the Legislature over
all subjects of internal police being part OF |
the general grant Of legislativa power given by |
the constitution, cannot be auld given away or
Irreyocable grants Of property |
and franchises may he made IL they do not i'm |
pair the supreme authority TO make laws for |
T he right government Of the State: but no one
Legislature can curtail the powers of its sue |
eessos TO make such laws as they may deem
proper in matters Of police.
Many more decisions might be cited in sup
port of our argument but these, we think
will suffice to settle the question as to the re-
vocabiity Of the charter Of the Louisiana
LOTTERY Company, If there be any doubt
about It, Are we not entitled to ask that the
Legislature of this State take action in
bbe matter and trample out Of existence a
corporation and a charter which have such
INJURIOUS consequences "a flow from the use
which Howard X Co make of it2