The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-04
THE LOTTERY In COURT.

LII LII lbhI LIN OUU Ill,
The extraordinary proceeding resorted to
by the Lottery Company In Billings court
for the purpose OF thwarting and suspending
the execution of criminal justice in this State,
will, Ii sustained, constitute the most fragrant
usurpation that has ever yet been attempted
by the Federal courts.
That 1t will be sustained and the Injunction
prayed for perpetuated, we assume at the
outset. When we take into consideration the
nature of the suit and the character OF the
litigants. rich and INSCRIPTIONS corpora
ton, fighting for very existence, on one side,
and mere nominal defendants on the
other, State officials having no actual
or personal interest in the matter at
issue, any other hypothesis would be I'M
reasonable, with such a Judge as Billings
occupying the bench Of the court in which
the proceeding is to be passed upon. Yet
whatever his ruling may be, and despite the
insolent menace conveyed in his preltminary
order, we do not hesitate to advise the Oil
Gals of the State, whose duty 1t Is to enforce
the penal laws and to maintain the peace and
dignity Of the sovereignty OF Louisiana, that
it Is their duty to disregard this order, or
any other that may emanate from the same
source, the effect Of which will be, IL
obeyed to suspend the operation OF criminal
Justice throughout the State. There must
be a limit to the continued aggress-
ions of the Federal courts, and II that limit
has not been reached In this instance, then
the State may as well relinquish her au-
tonomy aud turn over the administration Of
her domestic affairs and the enforcement OF
her laws, civil and criminal, to the Federal
judges and United States marshals.
The first and most important question to
be considered In the discussion OF this re-
markable procedure is that Of jurisdiction.
We venture to say that it is without prece-
dent in the history Of American jurispru-
denee, and that no attempt has ever
been made to induce a Federal court
to exercise original Jurisdiction in O similar
case That this Is q case which the Supreme
Court Of the United States has the right to
finally pass upon, we unhesitatingly concede;
but that it Is case that can originate in a
Federal court, or any where else than in a
State court we just as confidently deny.
Should the Injunction prayed for ia this case
be granted, the effect of it would be, not
merely to render imperative penal law Of
the State but to deprive the State courts alb
solutely OF the right and power to pass upon
the constitutionality OF that law. It
would certainly be difficult to conceive
Of a more dangerous and vicious assault
upon the sovereignty of a State than is threat
ened In this proceeding. Such cases as this
have been repeatedly passed upon by the SUI
preme Court OF the United States, but they
have, invariably, been carried to that tribunal
by writ5 of error from the State courts,
where they originated, and where the deci-
sion of the court of original Jurisdiction re-
fused the relief asked for under the constitu-
ton or law of Congress. Where this relief
is afforded in the State court, or the provision
OF the constitution, or the law Of Congress,
pleaded, is given a broader construction than
was contended for, the decisions are all to the
effect that writ of error does, not lie, and
Therefore that even this appellate and reviso-
ry jurisdiction is merely conditional.
! The question Of jurisdiction raised in this
case Is one too plain, and too often passed
upon to admit of doubt. The second section OF
the third article Of the Federal constitution
defines the extent of the judicial power of the
| United States. Jurisdiction is therein given
| to the courts OF the Union in two classes OF
cases. In the first, their jurisdiction depends
on the character of the cause, whoever may
be the PARTIES This class comprehends "all
cases In law ambiguity arising under this con-
stitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their authority" This clause extends the
jurisdiction of the court to all cases described,
without any exception, and it is under this
clause that this proceeding purports to be
taken. La the second class the jurisdi elton
depends entirely upon the character of the
parties, and comprehends controversies be-
tween two or more States, between State
and citizens Of another State, and between a
State and foreign States, citizens or subjects. :"
Ii these be parties, it Is a matter Of no i'm
portance what may be the subject matter in
controversy. In this proceeding the real par
ties are the Lottery Company. corporation
created by and domtciliated within the State,
and the State. 1t does not, therefore, matter
where Mr.. Howard or Mr.. Morris may re-
side. The suit is really between the State
and one Of her domestic corporations, and
the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts cannot
be invoked on any OF the grounds applicable
to the second class of cases.
But the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is
not claimed in this suit by reason Of the
character Of the parties, but solely on the
ground that the law, against the enforcement
Of which an Injunction is prayed, is in viola
ton Of the tenth section Of the first ar
ticle and the fourteenth amendment of the
constitution, and that this is a case arising
under the constitution and laws OF the United
States The question to be determined, then,
is whether the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts in this class Of cases is original or
merely revisory, and in either event what is
the proper and legal method of invoking it:
To begin with, we insist that by the very
nature of things no case can arise under the
constitution and laws of the United States
until this law is given force and effect
by the State. II the State merely
allows the statute to remain dead let.
ter on her books and makes no effort
to enforce it, there has been no possible vic.