National Republican., 1879-12-30
THE LOTTERY MAIL SUIT.
End of the Arguments in the Court
in General Term.
Solicitor Freeman Upholds the Law and the
Postmaster G Genoral-NIr. southard Sub
mlts Some Points on His side
Closing Arguments by Judge
Uay and Senator Car
pentor Yesterday.


bench.
The counsel on both sides were present The
opening argument having been finished last
week, The defence took up their side Of the case.
MI. Freeman said that there were some features
IN the case outside of chonccry litigation. There
were some extraordinary and striking features. II
might be necessary TO take general Wow OF the
case, and look beyond the record, aud however sue
ccSsful the ustue counsel has been to try and cover
the olinus IN the cause, still II would Mt times crop
out and become apparent. 10 wGSnCcCSsnr ggivrn nm
,"Juhc''oh conI .ssue ~ scST That fraut had
ocrn rerg,.ai,teu; neither would n general donal
IN answer suffice to dissolve one. Specific denial
must be made of the grounds on which the IN.
junction issues. 4 tribunal organized by act Of
Congress decides that Mr. Dnuphn is engaged I'm
certain transactions deemed " he fraudulent and
sufficient to authorize the PoStmaScrGcncrnl to
issue the order that hC did. Now the complainant
comes Into court and strives to Cninpcl the POST
/ maslerGeneral to revoke that Ordcr but not by
general denial Of the charge made against him.
II the court had Jurisdiction II would not uterpoSe
| an Injunction under such circumstances twas
! not an oversight IN the draft Of the bill that such
! M omission was made. The parties making 4 had
sudiuusly and purpOseiy avoided letting the court
| know the nature of Mr. Dauphins business. u
wus sufficient 10 say that he was receiving hundreds
| OF thousands Of dollars through tho postal
| money orders from STRANGERS throughout the
United States; that he had selected the ublcst ccuu
/ sci at the bar 70 conduct his suit Tic profession
from the orange groves of the south 10 the iroZcl
| lakes OF the North had been drawn upon for this
! purpose Both houses OF Congress had been IN.
| yadcd, and the abcN talent to be found there had
| been invoked In behalf of this case. Every Cir-
cumstancc showed the nature Of the case aud That
| lottery ran all through it, The word would NcCi.
! denally slip out IN the impassionei arguments,
| but despite all this, every fundamentally was
used to hide from the court the true business fol-
| lowcdhy Mr.. Daurhn, and what was prcSsingiorHn
injunction If this were not so. why did the counsel
not deny ii and come out boldly aud acknowledge
whOt were the true reasons for applying for an III
Junction.
lie challenged tn m TO produce, with few OK.
ccptons any indor.cment throughout the world Of
this species of business and read rom numerous
authorities evidences to show the Injurious effects
ff Nll a. ll.sag
who are always the worst sufferers.
He read from the Louisville N9RNy N00o:Me
| an article by Professor Town, once secretary
of the Louisville Lottery to establish q public
library for Kentucky, IN which he charged that rs
being the most gigantic, fraudulent scheme over
imposed upon the public. The gross proceeds of
the first Ave concerts and drawings after all eX-
peuscs were paid were s2Gs3lSGS In loss than
five years after It's establishment its credit in bank
amounted tJ S2G7, and the library had gone where
the wuodbiuc twincth.'
Just in this way were thousands and hundreds
of thousands of dollars pouring into Loni,iana un-
der the certificates OF honesty aud fair dealing that
cOuld he given TO II by such names as Generals
Bcauregard and Early. lie maintained that this
was not such business as the court could protect.
The other side must come in with clean hands be.
fore they could either ask or hope for the all OF
the court Even If they had good cause, the com,
plainHnt had not such one on when they could
invoke the powers Of t!ic court
Several cases were cited to show that the court
had no p2%cT either by mdnddmus or Injunction
10 control the discretion OF an executive officer,
Chici.Justice Cartier wished to know If an ad.
mlnlStrutlNc inquiry ended III an unCOllS,tutlOnal
result could 1t not be reached through the courts
by their proper examination and he governed by
their decision?
Mr. Freeman promised to answer the question
further on In his argument, but did not deny tha
If the Postmaster-G5neral had performed an eXtrl
administrative act that he could be reached, and
there was q manner In which 1t could be done. II,
said that the Intervention Of the court in this cas-,
was asked on extraordinary grounds that the nc
was unconstitutional and void, and the court wa
asked TO intcrpose it, Judgment upon the Office
ordered to execute it. The Postmaster.Gcnera
was not to be permitted to exerci e his view anC
i, construction OF this law lie wished to know tn,
. difference between telling an officer that he wa
: about to misconstrne law and the executing OF
law that was unconstitutional
He insisted that Mr.. Dnuphin was not deprived
1 ofany right under the law; that he had no righ
to use the postal system except under the pcrn!s
sion of the Postmaster General, and as guarantee,
under certain sections OF the Revised statutes
Tho action of the Postmaster. General did not In
). wade any right Of Mr.. Dauphin's under the Comsti
and Congress had the right TO fix any condition
+ Tor the enjoyment of these privileges.
one of the objections nt that time was that II c'
tnblished system opening the postal service I
fraud and laying Ii liable to become the instru
nent to assist in carrying out fraudulent scheme
To obYiatc this trouble certain safeguards wer
thrown about IT, and the Postmaster General wa
given authority 70 protect IT, ,
ChietJusce Cartier wished to know, II II wa
y. granted that Congress had the power to say whit
should go into tho mails and what should be II
hibited did that permit Congress to deny thes
parties the benefit OF the mails for other pu
poses?
Mr.. Freeman thought that II did; that the n,
of Congress conferred that power and as II CAV
~ none 20 discriminate between the maiIaole ana ~
y mailable matter, then tho whole OF II should
= Mr. Carpcnter-Is thero any other authority tha
Il the act of Congress?
Mr. Frcoman said that there was not but Il
~ thought 1t ample 70 cover tho cases Congress SO
N ing the impossibility OF distinguishing between 4
Z letters proper and improper to pass through Il
:, mail gave authority to exclude them all; lie pr
sumcd that Congress possessed the NAKED power
say that only certain class, and them nlOn
should have the benefit OF the postal and regs,crc
letter systems no matter If the whole country W
taxed for lis support. The order Of the Postmnstc
General was only an attempt on the part OF III
- Official ~ execute the law Of Congress declarir
what should and what should not 80 through Il
{, mail.
The party acting in this case Is not In the coutE
oftho Postmaster General, who could not dischar
him for disobeylpg 1t, and If an order Is issued 7
vOEng the order he need not obey IT, He wGu
have discretionary power, and II lie conceived tl
the present order was lawful one he might lUllc
II, H. 1.-The had not believed the order was lawful
would not have complied with II The RENEE
they ask no claimed, was not eHectuul, as tn
claim that the order was void, and the blll shu'
that the P0stmaster-G GeEeral Is not responsible b
tho postmaster nj New Orleans was the party, and
be he executed a void order could they expect him
- execute an OIder revoking the one complained q
Justice Haguer desired 10 know u IL WAS an arg
= ment not to issue an inJuhctoh because Il wou
M HIr freeman said that It would not He
llcycd that this suit would settle the question, l.
that II would not do 50 as well ASH 10 reached d
party executing the order-that was tho posunas
at New orleans.
Mr. NJ l. sOulharl, by consent, for the compla
~, ant stated certain points without argument;
- First-rhat the wrongful de,culion Of II seal
- letter whether registered or not by the postmas
at the office OF IT, detention, from the person W
is entitled 10 II, Is q seizure Of such letter,
secoud-Thgt such Withholding rs also q cOny
sion or taking OF property,
Third-That where such letters have nothing
- the outside thereof 10 indicate their character Il
wrongful for pOstmnsers or others to break the So
4 ftlq lnI n i.t
on suspicion, and the law requires them to be
I. liVered.
z Fourth--That the mode Of asCcrtalniug whutl
y sealed letters contain matter prohibited By the Il
20 Is by judicial proceedings uud not by eNecuti
" action,
second Proposition -Fiut-If therefore,
statute here In question lseCtlOus 1929, lDiD s TO
construed 10 mean what II expressly declares,
- must be held 70 be unconstitutional and void
ig | Consequence Of tho results which How from IT,
~ cause II condemns without hearing or trial
Wy SeCOnd-Becausc II provides Tor the seizure O
persons papers and effects without duo process
the law
on Ihird-Bccause It depriyes person Of his pr
l.R GTty without due process Of law.
FuuTth-BcCRuse IL denies 10 a citizen Of
state the privileges aud immunitiCs OF citizens
the several states,
This is upon the hypothesis OF course that
and Louisiana State Lottery Company Is In This Z,
aud tHt the word fraudulent Is 10 have NJ eff
ion and an lottery companies are 10 be condemned
md Wdluu tt Sc in compliance with the ruling OF
~