The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-01-28
THE LOTTERY BILL.
THE MAJORITY ANu MINORITY me-
FORTS or THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES THEREON.

i
/ COMMITTEES THEREON.
Majority Report.
To the Honorable President and Members Of
the Senate:
The undersigned members Of your Commit
tee on the Judiciary, I'd which was referred
peal act No. 25 OF the Legislature Of 1868, -
etc, commonly known as the act repeating
the Louisiana Lottery Company's charter,
beg leave to report the same favorsbly, with
the following amendment In section 9, line q:
Strike out the words, ats passage" and
insert In lieu thereof the word, "the thirty
fret day Of March, 1879" They have consid-
cred the propriety Of the object had In view
by the movers OF the bill, and believe 1t to be
proper one.
In their opinion the present Lottery institu-
ton Is standing reproach to the State, and,
In It's effects upon society, can only be COM
pared to q malignant cancer which is eating
out the very vitals of the morals OF the peo-
pie. They have examined the law of the case,
and believe that manifest right exists In the
Legislature to repeal, at any time, the grant
OF any franchise, whether In the form Of con-
tract or otherwise, when the same is contra
bonOs m0res. That such statute confers no
vested rights which cannot be divested by
legislative act they think plain by very ele-
mental principle Of law, and that all contracts
against good morals, Ii not absolutely void
are at least voidable.
Perhaps the principle has never been ap-
piled more frequently and plainly than to
gaming contracts, among which stand
large number Of decisions of the Supreme
Courts Of the various States upon the SUBJ
iect OF repeal Of lottery statutes.
In 8 Miss. soe, Freligh VS.. the State, the
court decided: "Where the Legislature au-
thorizes private individualor corporation
oraise sum OF money by lottery, to effect an
object Of public concern, as q railroad,
bridge, or canal, the statute by which the
authority is created may be at any time re-
pealed. without violating any constitutional
provision"
The same principle, In regard to the repeal
Of lottery franchise granted to increase the
revenues for school purposes, was maintained
in the case Of Miss. Society OF Arts VS.. Mus
grove, A Miss. 800. and In Miss. e97; 4s
Miss 147; Met. Board OF Excise vs. Barre. 81
N. Y. 663, and several cases In the Virginia
Reports.
As late as 1876 the Supreme Court Of the
United States, in 4 Otto $50, Boyd VS.. Ala
bama, speaking OF the repeal OF statute, en-
titled IAN act to establish Mutual Aid Asso-
citation, and to raise funds for the common
school system OF Alabama" said Mr.. Justice
Field, delivering the opinion of the court
which was unanimous:
"We are not prepared to admit that 1t is
competent for one Legislature to restrain the
power Of subsequent Legislature to legIs-
late for the public welfare, and to that end to
suppress any and all practices tending to cor
rupt the public morals"
The Louisiana Lottery Company having
paid into the treasury their first. quarterly
payment, the undersigned think It proper to
recommend the amendment before mentioned,
and with this amendment, for the reasons
herein set forth, recommend It's passage.
F.C. ZACHARIE,
PA. DUCROS, JR.
GEO. Fl. WELLS.
concur In the above, and submit additional |
reasons herewith.
FRANK P. STUBBS.
l concur In the recommendation for favor
able report Of the bill.
ANDREW 8. HEBRON.
concur In the above report, with an amend
ment to the amendment that Ehis bill shall
take effect from and after the thirty-first of |
December, 1879, for the reason the State hav-
ng accepted the first installment upon the
to be paid by the company for the
year 1879, and by said acceptance the State
mas consented for the company to carry on
ts business during the present year.
GEO. FL. ELLIS.
Gen. HerrOn's COncurrfng Report.
The question presented, as to whether the
'epeal Of the laws under which the Lottery
company Is worked would impair the obliga-
ions Of contract or divest vested rights, is
ne not entirely free from doubt Gentlemen
i eminent legal ability contend that no con-
titutional barrier can be interposed to pre-