National Republican., 1879-12-25
THE LOTTERY MAIL CASE.
Hearing Of the Suit Against the
Postmaster General.
Senator Carpenter Argues that the Law is
Unconstitutional-The Postmaster-Gen-
erals Powers Defned--Congress-
man Casey Young's Argument
He Holds that Proof
Must be Submitted.



ucos llagner, Cox and James sitting on the bench.
u Senator Carpenter and Hon. Casey Young, Of
sistant Attorney.General A. A. Freeman and Judge
Ray for the defendant The bill OF complaint was
Mr. Carpenter said that in another case quite
differently presented, he argued the constitution
ality Of this and should now pass over those
points touching lightly upon them, as the same
judges that heard the former case were sitting in
the present one with the addition Of another. lie
did not sec why II the sections Of the statute in re.
| gard TO the postal service could not be sustained
| they were not entitled TO the order applied for
| Ifnny one was asked what was the sovereign
power of the. Government aud It's strength, they
would be told It's equal division In three co-ordi
nate branches, each equal in strength, Limitation
and power Tho Capitalization Of this power under
/ one head would be TO lead to dcspOtlsm and
! tyranny and therefore the necessity Of the divis
| ion was pulpnbly apparent One OF these oo-ordi-
| nate branehes was the Judiciary, and no matter
how painful the duty might be the court was bound
IN honor to treat case fairly and give an honest
| decision.
They were between the Executive and the Capi.
tol, and II was their duty to hold the scales with
an even balance between the two They had come
10 this court for Justice, and 1t was the courts duty
| 10 meie IL out TO them without sending them else
where 10 find frmness and their rights. lie did
not doubt but they would Coit
The first question was We're these sections Of the
| statute constitutional2 If not there was the end
of the case and that was the point the court would
| be called upon 10 decide.
Tho Constitution provides that the judicial power
shall be Invested In the courts therefore 1t cannot
be exercised by Congress conferred on the Post.
master General as that is expressly forbidden.
| IL was alleged that Mr.. Dnuphin had been guilty
offraud Ifhe had was he not indiclablc? should
not the Grand Jury be cited to investigate the mat.
iSrt In dhhey ~ conld , 40 So and presenting him, he
guilty or Innocent II guilty, lie is punished IN ac.
eordance with the act of Congress.
! That Us regular proceeding and correct: but
| does the act provide that he shall he tried by the
| Posimastcr'Gcneral without appearance on Dau.
phns part, without witnesses or jury condemned
and sentenced? Certainly not. The Postmaster.
General has no power to subpoena Il witness or nd.
minister an oath. He would be liable to Indictment
and punishment for performing an extra judicial
act II he did So He wanted to know the difference
! in character OF the power between the court and
| PosimNster-GeneTal as executed by the two now
sitting IN different chambers. He would not insult
the court by pressing further IN that direction If
! Congress could punish for obtaining money under
false pretenSes through the Postmaster.Geperal
same way. lie deGcd any man to point
ont distinction between the two cases
| Crime was violation OF the law and II one class
could be punished before the Postmaster. General
undoubtedly another could. There could be no
distinction. lIe claimed that the act of Congress
delegated Judicial authority to the PoStmHstcr-Gen.
Cral, and he has been exercising IT, and that was
unconstitutional. II was not in the power Of com.
! mon ingenuity to devise difference between the
power exercised by tho Postmaster General nnd
that that would be exercised by the court were the
same case to come before IT. lie could not doubt
but that tho court would sec that the Postmaster
General had been exercising Judicial power.
clared that the contract with this Lottery Company
was sacred and must be upheld, and this company
pays annually to Tie State 10000. Congress had
no power TO forbid lottery in q State. Could It
direction?
1t could not exercise conceded power for the
purpose of accomplishing what It was acknowl.
edged II could not enact The Stale of Louisiana
had legalized the lottery and 1t wns Just as leRn as
cottongrowing, In iact more so, for It was sus.
taiued by the constitution Of the State Maine aud
Vermont as States had forbidden the sale Of louor
within their confines. Gould Congress say that
liquor should not lie sold aud that nny man So
nj he "a taa mai figO 7, -,
as properly be done as In tho present instance
where a lottery company, legally recognized In
Louisiana was prohibited the benefit Of the mails
by the Postmasier.Gencrn In this case the punish
ment prescribed IS unlimited. The Postmaster.
Gcueral issues his edict not to deliver
any mail 10 Mr. Dauphin, and II Is for
all time. Concedng the act to be nnconstiiu
Ional, could the Postmaster General be touched 2
Did lie tower 50 high that The law or court could
not reach him7 Justice Marshall had distinctly
declared that 10 oficer was above tho law and
1 cJlld'uqt le reached by msndamus Tho Post.
mss'eT.Geuerl! could be reached aud must obey
lie sail that In the closing OF Tho argument on Tie
previous hearing u had been stated BY tie counsel
ioF he deendani !hsl the order for this suppres,
sion Of mail had teen Issued, and denied that any
Z authority existed 70 compel IT, withdrawal Ue
then read from numerous authorities TO show that
IN Just such case the writ for injunction was ap.
pliCable and had been successfully invoked The
court was placed there TO that the Del Iartments
did not tTansGress their Legitimate duties The
President was humble enough, but these bureau
heads, and even every 81 200 clerk, thought them.
selves omnpotent and imagined that they were be
de:erence but with all confidence that the law was
as he had laid it down.
Mr.. Young having TO leave for homo In the morn.
ing, was by courtesy permitted 10 follow Mr.. Car
pener. He said that he should not address him.
self to the constitutional questions but coutine his
argument 10 other points. The same principle that
governed this case as property recognized by tho
State of Louisiana, was recognized by the acts OF
Congress OF 1852, IT was no more so than one that
agitated this country for fifty years existing IN
eleven States clothed by Congress with recognition
in all the courts, and which existed down 10 the
close of the civil war and the surrender at Appo-
mGtlox, and that was the right OF property IN
slaves, lwaS the first time in his knowledge tina,
a citizen of this Republic was tried, condemned
and punished by ministerial officer. II was the
first time citizen had been deprived Of q right
before being arraigned, tried and convicted oi
crime. II nattered not whether the law was con.
stitutonal or not, but on the question now before
the court, that was not the proper point for argu
ment especially by tho law officers Of the Govern
ment II Mr: Dauphin had been falsely charged
with violation Of the law, and his mail withheld
7 on an order founded on such charge, then there
was no escape, aud an injunction must issue DiC
, the bill show state OF facts that warranted one
. lie submitted thatit did. Had the complainant q
legal right, and would II be endangered? Would
4 he sustain an injury that would be inepaTsbe
These he maintained were the propositions in
volyed in the application and which the court mus
consider in making up its decision. II was an ex
zen deprived Of his rights without duo process 0
law, This order Went beyond the law because /
was levoled at man that had not violated II
The question OF lottery was not before the court
but N was the rights Of Mr., Dauphin as a citizen
II Congress had conferred upon the Postmaster
General these strange and extraordinary powers
he could not exercise them against mai that hat
not violated this law. II he did, the court should
Immediately stretch out its hand and bring th
man injured within It's protection Ho had no
doubted the unconstitutonality OF this law ana be
leved that twould not stand an hour before
court having the power TO make decision upol
that point untl IL Is shown 10 the court by proc
that Mr. Donphin by SOME device, intrigue or lals
representation, was conducting certain bushes
ana using the mall9 for thai purpose, there was u,
escape through equity practice from granting th'
injunction.
, Al this point the argument was continued unit
Monday next
FOR FINE DRESS SUITS 60 TO EISEAiAS
| BROS, COR, SEVENTH AND f.
Pair Fine Solitaire Diamond Earrings,
"A oNrsts fun OF fire. $500. Jacobs Bros 1920 Penn