Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-12-15
The Louisiana State Lottery Case.
THE INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL.

The Louisiana State Lottery Case.
THE INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL.
To-day in the Supreme Court of the District,
sitting in General Term, Chief Justice Cartier
and Judges James and Hagner, the case Of M.
A. Dauphin secretary and agent Of the Louisi-
ana State Lottery, against Key, Postmaster
General, was heard, Senator Carpenter, Judge
T. w. BARLEY, Hon. NJ. /. SOuthard, w. c.
Moulton and E. B. Hay for the petitioner and
department, and Major Ray for the respondent.
This is bill for an injunction to enjoin the
enforcement Of an order of the Post Office de-
partment prohibiting the delivery of letters ad-
dressed to petitioner, on the ground that the
party Is engaged In an unlawful calling.
The law and papers having been read atten-
tion was called to the fact that the order had
been modified SO as not to prohibit the delivery
The Post ONCE department filed demurrer
that there is no affirmative allegation asking
relief as in equity it should; that no private
letters have been withheld; that respondent is
sued as citizen of Tennessee, and cannot be
sued as such; that respondent has the right to
the custody OF the letters in the mails; that the
letters said to have been withheld are letters
pertaining to the lottery business, which is
prohibited by the laws OF the United States. Mr..
Ray proposed to argue the case on demurrer
but Senator Carpenter and Judge Bartley claim
ed that they had the affirmative and that the
question was on the bill and not on the demur-
rer which had just been filed. They proposedto
argue the bill.
Judge Hagner read an authority as to the
power OF the court to order the argument on the
demurrer at once.
Senator Carpenter said no such order had
been made, and If made they would submit like
children. He submitted, however, that the
party asking the Injunction had the opening.
Chief Justice Cartier said it was very imIna-
terial as to who should open. He had no doubt
about hearing the demurrer in the natural Or
DER OF argument. The respondent says in his
demurrer admitting all the allegationS) that
the bill does not show case In which he
should be debarred from the performance OF his
official duties in this matter.
Judge James cOncufred In the decision OF the
Chief Justice, and counsel were ordered to pro-
coed with argument on the demurrer.
Judge Bartley.-What becomes OF our motion
for rule?
Mr.. Ray proceeded with his argument on the
demurrer.
Judge Ray claimed that the President alone
was responsible for the official action OF his con-
stitut1onal advisers, and that the constitutions
ality OF the act was not involved in the case and
under the statute the P. NJ. General had full
power to do just what he had done.
senator Carpenter claimed that the law was
not Sc sweeping, and said to shorten the case
they would admit that the act was constitu-
gonal ana that the order was proper, but he in
accuse; try and condemn, and substitute himself
in place OF the courts.
Judge BARLEY, for the petitioner said the
question as to jurisdiction was settled, and he
referred TO number OF cases. This was the first
Time he had heard that officer could not be re-
strained from performing an unconstitutional
act.
Judge Ray said he did not hold such doctrine.
but that when the President Of the United
states was made the executive of the law the
proceedings should be against him and not
against the head of the department.
Judge BARLEY read several authorities as to
on1ceIs being amenable to the law and said that
even the king Of England could be sued as cit
izen.
The Chief Justice.-NO body has claimed that
the President could not be sued for his tavern
bill.
Judge BARLEY said that it was the duty OF the
Fost Office department to receive and transmit
letters on which postage was paid. 1t was
ministerial act, and II the government was
commence with the churches. He claimed that
the execution Of this order would break up his
private business and the lottery business which
Is authorized by the constitution and laws OF
his state.
Senator Carpenter was making an argument
for the respondent when our report closed