The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-27
NEWS or THE CITY.
What the Democrat Reporters Saw
and Heard Yesterday.
TIE LOTTERY CASE
All No. al Declared To BE Unconstitutional
and the State Authorities Enjoned
from Enforcing Il,

1uioa Killings Yesterday rendered an exceed
,npv lengthy decision In the case OF the Louisi-
ana State Lottery Company Vs. John Fitzpatrick
ct al
The following ia synopsis OF the opinion
and the full test of the decree:
THE LOUISIANA STATE LOTTERY COMPANY ut AIS.
W. JOHN FITZPATRICK UT AIS.
The comrlainants have filed their bill In the
Circuit Court of the United PtHtes under the
permission conferred In an act of Congress at
proved March .. 1876 which vested those courts
with original eoguHanee Of all suits Of a.clyil
nature at common law or IN equity arising
under the constitution and laws of the United
States or treaties made or which shall be made
under their authority" 10 Statutes at Large.
court was w thls statute enlarged 10 the entire
extent OF the judicial power delegated to the
Congress by the, terms Of the constitution. Prior
pended tn q great measure upon the eohhl
ton OF. character Of the PARTIES; and upon POI,
statute vests q. jurisdiction of all cases
which may involve the enforcement Of the
constitution laws end treaties ri w unitTd
tio ,,,s9 thus acquired comprehends suits which
Tie United States or its officers or agents may
e eiraf laws or treaties, and such as may
Ia maintained against them because Of offteia!
acts or obligations besides thesa are embraced
where the constitution laws or treaties of the
United States shall form the immediate and de-
terminng cause Of the controversy, and this
fact IL exhibited to the court In aueh form that
The court can take cognizance Of t. Until the
Is SO and Is thus P made ths
enactment the powers which the Congress had
not bestowed upon the Federal courts by legis-
authority had not designated the tribunal which
should be authorized to employ them. :, This In
terpretation Of this clause oi the constitution e
announced In Martin w. Hunter, ] VIII 30l;
Osborn w. Bunk. VIII. 1888; Aieman We. Booth
Al How 5os Mayor ,,ys. Cooper, Wall. az:
ITnttad Stntes ROharta Conn. 3l3.
The opinion then briefly recltes the alega-
tions in the. bill q COMPLAINT. to wit: me
granting to 1t by the Legislature corporate
rights and privileges for n term Of twenty I've
years, the payment Of money 70 The State under
uassnge 81 the repeating act by The Legislature.
the refusal of tho State to accept further pay
ments of money, that the net impalrs the obli-
cation Of a contract and that the General AS
sembly In passing y have violated thu prohlbl-
tory clause Of TIE constitution These facts
thus arrived ut disclose a case arising under
the constitution of the United safes Con-
The supreme Court Of the United States Ia
rasnnct 10 the clause of the constitution en-
bodied III the act Of Congress determining the
jurisdiction of the. Circuit Court says: The
terms terms, no limitation Is imposed. The broadcast
language s used. Al cases SO arising are en-
braeed Nome are EXCLUDED ., How jurisdiction q.
whether 1t snail be original or appellate, or
original In part and appellate In part, and the
Il has been acquired are not prescribed. The
constitution is silent upon the subject. They
are remtted without check or Limitation to the
". e Cooper u, Wall. a47. - -. -, 80 :
The lat Of 1877 grants 70 the Circuit Court
Original cagnzance of all al b cases"
TO sustain this point Judge Billings quoted
from Wall. Supra. and, continuing. said: "A
case arising under the ,,,. constitution a having
tion comes up whether the case be one In which
the plaintiffs have title to an INJUNCTION and
the allegations in the bill Of complaint had not
been denied nor u there any question that IN
act OF the Legislature repeating the charter \
poration. nor that all departments OF the State
government have sanctioned its validity. Lou
An AHA 7as: act No, II q 1a75. approved April B.
Il was decided shortly after the c2n INST
Of the United sa.os was made tna e rights
trolled or destroyed by any subsequent statute
unless apower tor that purpose be reservedf..
the Legislature In the act OF incorporation
Wales We. stetson. Mass. LAG.
Judge Billings dwelt upon this ruling. which
h. ad ha ~ a NEE u y ns Pr A.
United. Ntates, with degree Of unanimit|
which ha IDLY any Q her opinion has obtaIned
ward. VII. bts: state Bank ys, Krump. 10 How
ase; .Haw horn vs. Golf. Wall 1s; B!nghamto1
n ade y aonsg Mn q TIA
the chart er could be repealed Tor the reason
that the franchise was for the drawing of lot
THE Nautl orifies are overwhelmingly agains
the positi ID taken by the Attorney General ant
bis assoc 'te for while lotteries are reprohate,
less. whet the grant Of the right to draw lotter
les has ia an the form of an absolute contTac
execution as resting entirely with the Legisla
ture, and have dealt with 1t as carrying the OBJ
legations which its terms q import" u,,...,o .
the question. laid down the PROPOSITIONS
Flrst-That II mere license to draw lotterie
which is not inseparable from the executive
functions of a corporation. and which has no
been ac ed unon, and under which no right
esedns The Which It
granted aud. sc ond. that when q license to
draw lotteries. has been acted upon and un del
Ii rights have been vested II cannot be wi tn
drawn by the Legislature 10 the prejudice Y
these rights. and the power OF the LEGISLATURE
or " o arxaed al consider
able length. and to establish them quotations
and references a. follows, were made, Davi
vs. Caldwell. D Robinson Rep 27l,,27s: the STAT
vs. Jacob Hawthorne Missouri Rep. asb: Pho
Ian w. the Commonwealth. l Robins9n tVir
H nntns so RED n H. Gregory ~ tho Trustee
Of shelby College, Metcalf tkentqokyl Rnn
$50; Phelan vs.. state Of virginia. Howard i =,
reference to lotteries was the immortality Of ia
consideration revoked. and too establish tha
the rulings and decisions had nean me- same SIM
Ia Wall. 65l; Boyce vs. Sable. Il Wall GIG; Del
mas va. the 1nsuance 90, IA Wall. GEL; Nj. an
w. r. Co VI. King. Ottofa.
The position take by the court as set forth Y
the two propositions and established by tn
authorities referred to, was enlarged upon AM
elaborated at considerable length, and the aver
ments in the bill of complaint were taken Y
and considered A. establishing the character 7
the charter and franchises Of the Louisiana stat
Lottery Company. How far the rights held b
the company were corporate franchises was In
uuired into, and after an extensive review 2
the entire subject the court decided that til
qualities Of the corporation do not belong q
licenses and do belong to corporate bodies
holding by Legislative contract, and decide
that the repeating act Of 1871. then. H. no
operative 10 take away the privileges and right
III the Louisiana State Lottery Company. TIL
American authorities are adverse to the Legis
latnre having any such right The question o
right having been established ns we'll As that O
wrong committed BY the enactment. the cues
tion remains to IA considered whether the *
istencs and ENJOYMENT OF the franchises ant
rights OF the plaintiff can he forfeited by tn
use of the writ of Injunction"
In passing upon this question the cour
chiefly ropsid, red tho poieSt urged by the AT