The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-09
THE LOTTERY CASE.
ARGUMENTS or HON. II. N. OGDEN
JUDGE EGAN AND JUDGE
CAMPBELL.

ARGUMENTS or HON. n. N. OGDEN,
JUDGE EGAN AND JUDGE
MPBRLL.
The case of the Louisiana State Lottery vs.
John Fitzpatrick ct ais. came UP to-day in me
United States Circuit Court. Judge Billings on
the bench.
ATTORNEY GENERAL H. N. OGDEN.
In opening the case for the defendants. flled. by
consent Of the plaintiff. certain aftidavits OF
Htate officials. of no very material character.
He then proceeded with his argument. Re-
farriup To the exceedingly able speech Of Mr..
Semmes, he expressed his dissent from the
oninion of that gentleman that the public sem
fiment II all civilized States had not proclaim
ed the immortality OF lotteries. In England and
III all Tho States OF this Union this public SEN
timeut had been manifested in the most en-
phatic manner. This sentiment was as old as
our race. He read from the Encyclopedias
Americana the history OF the various laws
against lotteries and gambling. as far back as
the reign OF Henry VIII. who approved and put
In force severe law against all forms Of
gambling. though he was great gamester him
self and sauandered the spoils Of the abbeys In
his private games Of chance
On this theme the Attorney General enlarged
with great eloquence. citing the provisions Of
our Civil Code III reference to the non recovery
of money won on games of chance. He con-
adhered the lottery the worst form Of gambling.
as 1t aIlured the poorer class to their ruin and
the deprivation OK their families OF the COM
forts OF lte
This public sentiment Of the people had been
expressed wisely and Justly In the act Of the
Legislature. which 1t was now proposed to set
aside and render ineffective through the Fed
eral tribunals. Thus the sovereignty Of the
States would be destroyed. When they were
prevented from the enforcement Of their Grim
inal statutes far greater evils and wrongs
would be- perpetrated than any which could re-
suit from this lottery grant,
Here 1t was proposed to arrest the officers Of
the State and prevent their discharge Of their
most appropriate duties In the enforcement Of
the criminal law. II such could be maintained
1t would amount to an overthrow Of State SOW
eregnty and make the State subservient to the
United States court In the administration Of its
police.
Mr.. Ogden referred to the case OF Osborn vs.
The United States Bank. as the case which had
gone far in the direction which had been fol-
lowed do to the extreme protensiOn In this case.
He showed how that case. however. differed
from the present, and treated. as mere obitu,'
the reference of Ohief Justice Marshall, quoted
by MIR. Eemmes, US TO the right Of the Federal
judiciary to take cases from the State lurisdtc-
fiction because of the character OF the suits,
without reference to citizenship. He analysed
The Act of 1876. and commended that
If the Interpretation OF that act by
Mr.. Semmes was the correct one. 1t was
clearly unconstitutional. But he contended
thatthis case did not arise under the constitu-
don. the laws and treaties OF the United States.
A Federal question might emerge IN the pro-
gress 81 the enforcement OF this law. butt did
not arise under the constitution the laws Of Con.
rre y or treaties. He read from the acts OF 1874
to show that no Injunction would lie against the
execution OF State laws. except 10 bankruptcy
This was no civil proceeding. It was an at
tempt to exercise q ortmina! jurisdiction. The
be subject to this Injunction. He denied that
their representative Of the sovereignty 81 the
state IN Al s,etsa e9Ha pc ns
the Osborn case IL was the Auditor who was
enjoined.. He was mere ministerial official
without the discretion and sovereign represen.
tative character OF the Attorney General and
district attorney.
Mr.. Ogden elaborated this point Ct some
length. concluding by referring to remedies
which the complainants had In the habeas cor.
p,ts and In wrlts OF error from the state courts,
s Marin m conflict between the State and the
Federal governments. Injunction was no proper
remedy. 1t would produce more harm tna .I ben.
III fhe learning and anteoedents Of hts distin-
pi,ished opponents could have become SO dis
reierred 10 the excitement produced through
he Nation by ne npnae ,aaa aaa order 49,
who. through judicial order. seized the State
House and empaneled." to use the language
OF Judge Campbell. Legislature ana usurped
ne q she s on 1ea
this act Of uenrpation and overthrow Of the
rights and government OF the people OF Louisl-
ana. ..,aun,.,
assistant attorney general. followed In an
elaborate argument TO show that there was No
that II was only license which was revocable
mt the pleasure Of the Legislature. He quoted
Burroughs on taxation and referred TO the case
pan a for ty Years. which had been leyoked
BY tho Legislature and the city, Of Chicago
question Of Jurisdiction. and asked what would
be thought II as many persons thought. could
be done the State courts had eDjoined the re-
81 Congress. which were believed by SO many
jurists to be Unconstitutional. He quoted some
hs tbs ot u ne sy
full occupation, 1t could not be made monopoly
unless under the police power.
JUDGE JOHN A. CAMPBELL
closed the argument for the plaintiffs In injunc
plieation for an Injunction was to enforce the
protection guaranteed by the constitution @
iafion of their rights under contracts by legis
iation and acts Of the State; He referred to tb'
Sfafs rights and sovereignty and Of the sacrec
immunity Of those, who represent that soy Y.
eighty and l. minded them that they were r sil
States. al declared In the constitution. which
was the bond Of the union OF those stas ses,
bnnn5 III j solemn OATH Where the States hat
surrendered BY this constitution powers ant
rights originally possessed by them they WeT'
sions Of that Instrument And when that con