National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-12-17
THE LOTTERY QUESTION.
The Arguments Finished and the
Case Submitted.
Proceedings in the Court in General Term
Judge Freeman Ably Presents the Post
nnaster-GencraTss Side OF the Qucs-
tion-The Petitioners Rem
edy not I'm an Injunction
Other Points, sc.
Mr.. pnunhIn,n suit for Ininncilon.

The argument In the case Of Mr. NJ. A. Dauphn
against Posmastor-Generul u. N. Key, for an In
junction 10 restrain the execution of an order Ill.
recting the Withholding Of letters addressed 10 the
former nom being delivered at New orleans, was
resumed Yesterday morning In the court IN gen
eral term, before Chief Justice Cartier and Justices
Hagner and James. The counsel on both sides
were IN attendance; Hon. 4. a, Freeman, assist.
nnt-Aitorncy-General, made the closing argument
for the defendant lie said that in View of the
very wide range OF the argument and conflict
PEELED to ask some leuiCncy In presenting his
views Of the right OF mandamus and It's bearing
upon Government officials. Much had been said
regarding the morals of the question. Whether II
was good policy ior a. state 10 logalle
thi9 system Of gambling he, should not state,
but ne ga not think il in good taste
to call the attention OF The court to the lac that the
walls Of the building IN which the justices were
sitting were erected by invoking the mid of lot
teiies. IN New York Uud Pennsylvania lotteries
were declared tObc public uuiSanccs aud punished
as such and looked upon Ms 4 species Of gaming.
such character had been stamped upon IL by the
civilized world and nearly every State, by legsla.
ton had inhibited their being chartered. IN late
years they had secured existence only by paying
tribute TO some charitable object or Incorporation.
There was no preense on the part OF the Post.
master General That he had the right 70 deprive
Nr. DGuphiu OF the use and benefit OF the mails,
but under tho act OF Congress he did claim 10
have the right TO control the postal and money
order system. and had declared IN circular order
10 ihg posnusCrS That they must return 10 The Office
from which they were mailed certain money orders
and registered letters. The counsel for tile other
side had get the powers Of the Postmas,er-G
mixed just as their client mixed his private with
the lottery letters
ChiefJustico Cartier wished to know. II this was
statutory duty placed by Congress upon the
Postmaster General, where was The necessity Of
discussing the powers Of the President?
Mr. freeman replied that ho did not know and
was about TO make that suggestion.
Judge BARLEY said that was the only point BET up
IN the demurrer.
Judge Ray stated that lie advanced the idea IN
ms Argument merely to obtain the views OF the
court upon IL.
M. freeman, resuming cited numerous suthori.
tics TO show the precedent established in the issuing
OF mandAmuS against Government officials, and
m almost every instance The court refused The up
pncntion, on the ground that the Judiciary could
not Interfere with executive officers in the dis
charge of their official duties unless they were
purely ministerial.
II was asserted that the Postmaster. Generally was
rot an officer above the law, ana therefore q mRil-
dantus would reach him but 1t did not follow,
Whle he was alncnGD'c To the law, that lie was
| bound TO respond TO q manlanus that might be
issued against him. II was insisted that Mr. Dau-
pun had vested right in The registered letters,
| ana to this they answered that under certain
contingencies these letter. carried and could
| De IcdeANered TO the sender, and such q
| contingency had arisen. The law of registration
said - tho citizen that undercertan circumstances
nc could send registered letter, but wa, informed
mat The PusimasterGcnera had the. right to sus-
pend That privilege for cause, In this instance IL
| was not Mr.. Dnuphin who was the sufferer and
! beng outraged but the Thousands of poor citizens
who were having their lilo blood sucked from them
| 10y this fraudulent lottery scheme.
| the great National robbery, not the Postmaster.
General, ior the money returned had been replaced
10 tho pockets Of the parties who sent IT, This was
in accordance with the agreement between Mr.
Dauphin and the POstmas er-G enerol, and now the
| former tries 70 withdraw from that compact and
secure these funds. The counsel on the other side
| were invoking the aid OF equity TO assist them IN
| Violating All act OF Congress.
Mr. Southland raised the point that while tho mat
ter might be uumaable, still, being mailed AM
reaching IL destination, the PoSnnGstcr-Gener0
had no power to break the seal except by due pro
cess Of law.
Mr.. Freeman said TINT tho point mado, If up
plcable at all, was ony applicable 10 matter trans
mited IN Tho ordinary mailpouch;,
The complainant held that different ChGr0cte
attached 10 letter on reaching It's destination Tn,
law did not make that distinction, aud he cited tht
law requiring such matter 10 be returned to tn,
Office whence II was posted. Everybody would adj
nit that the sanctity Of the mails should be pre-
served but there We're certain restrictions that /
was necessary TO throw around them that the!
might be secured from becoming the vehicle o
abuse, and failing 10 perform the service for which
they were created
He was willing that they miqht take the iniunc
ton no far rs he was concerned, but the Postmaster
General could not obey IT, lie had issueC
this order and hUd done no more. l
they wanted 10 reach tho POstmGster-Geucra
they would have to do 50 By maildanus, and com
pei him 70 revoke the order 10 stop the execution
of the order already issued they must obtain III
Who has been dcputzed With he execution Of i
Tho POstmAster-Genernls authority ceased In tn
matter with the issuing Of the order and he coult
not remove the postmaster at New Orleans fhe re
fused 70 obey IT, but in all probability the Presiden
would The very iact that MIR. Dauphin has suit
against pOstmnsters in different localities through
out the cOuntry showed that suits were being prop
erly brought, and there existed no necessity 70
the interpositon Of that court. II the injunction
prevailed IN this ii would not prevent the Post
master General from issuing another order in
similar case, He did NOT say that he would do so
fol he would have too much respect for the judg
ment OF the court, but he was not deprived OF TN
right 10 Neither could he see how by the grant
ing Of this Injunction multiplicity OF suits wer
TO be avoided.
He claimed that the petitioner should have pro
ceeded by law II the law WAS constitutional the
had no remedy, but IL unconstitutional, Then the
had right TO sue the defendant.
Nj Muulton-FOr the vGlue of the letterS2
MI FTeeman-Ies. by u suit In trovCr.
lie said that the power conferred on the Post
mRster-General while quasi Judicial was not con
elusive and did not deprive any OF their right,
At the close of tho argument the court took III
pagers and reserved Judgment