Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-12-16
The Louisiana State Lottery Case.
THE INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL.

The Louisiana State Lottery Case.
THE INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL
Yesterday, in the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict, sitting in General Term, Chief Justice
Cartier and Judges James and Hagner.) the
case OF NJ. A. Dauphin, secretary and agent of
the Louisiana State Lottery, against Key, Post
master General, was continued after our report
Glosed.Senator Carpenter, Judge T. W. Barley,
Hon. NJ. L. Southland, w. c. Moulton and E. b.
Hay for the petitioner and Hon. A. A. Freeman.
solicitor OF the Post ONCE department, and
entoin the enforcement of an order of the Post
ONCE department prohibiting the delivery of
letters addressed to petitioner, on the ground
that the party is engaged in an unlawful call
Ing. The respondent filed demurrer thereto
ana the case was argued on the latter. Senator
Carpenter, for the petitioner, pointed out that
IN the early history OF the government there
distinctive relations OF the coordinate branches
OF the government Now, it had gotten not only
to the heads OF the departments to regulate
affairs, but even 81 200 clerks would decide a
case with all the pompousness Imaginable and
the interested party would be told there was no
appeal. He held that a court was part of Co
ordinate branch of the government, and when
1t laid down the law Mr.. Key must obey. II he
refused, the aid Of mandamus was evoked to
compel obedience The Postmaster General
represented the President only in the exercise
OF discretionary executive power, but not in
ministerial power. The case before them was
one in which evidently the President could not
act. The lotteries may be wicked and those
always so looked upon. The very building Getty
HalD in which the court sat was erected through
the aid OF lotteries, and he had been told that
other buildings in this city had been erected in
the same way. This lottery in Louisiana was
not scheme; 1t was organized and operated
under contract with the state, and the latter
Is paid $4,000 year for permitting it to con-
tfnue in operation. The law granting the char
voted
democrats in the state legislature and there
could not be any political significance charged
with its creation. He argued at some length
upon the jurisdiction of the court, and MAIN
tanned that an unconstitutional act was invalid.
II the Postmaster General becomes satisfied
that man is engaged In an unlawful business,
that would deprive him of right guaranteed to
every citizen Without charge, without trial.
without jury, without notice, the Postmaster
General could do this, and the first thing the
man knew OF the entire transaction was that he
was deprived OF one of his rights.
ARGUMENTS TODAY.
This morning Hon. A. A. Freeman, for the
respondent, argued the case. Referring to the
statement that this building (the City HalD had
been erected on the proceeds Of lottery, he
said it was not In good taste. He referred to
the legislatures of New York and Pennsylvania,
which had declared lotteries to be nuisances
and penalties were provided, the lotteries being
considered species of gambling; and such
character had been put upon them by the civil
lied world. In late years they had secured ex-
istence only by paying tribute to some char
liable organization. The Post Office depart.
ment did not claim to deprive Mr.. Dauphin of
the benefit OF the mails, but claimed the right
to control the postal system. He then quoted
authorities to show that the courts would not
interfere with executive officers unless as to
duties purely ministerial. 1t was asserted that
the Postmaster General was not above the law
and mandamuS would reach him, but it did
not follow while he was amenable to law that
he was bound TO respond to mandamuS. 1t
was insisted that Mr.. Dauphin had vested
right in the registered letters. but he denied it,
claiming that these letters could be returned to
the SenderS under certain contingencies and
that contingency had arisen. In this instance
II was not the complainant, but thousands Of
poor citizens, who are having their life-blood
sucked from them. who are suffering. 1t
was Mr.. Dauphin who proposed to carry on this
great national robbery, not the Postmaster
General, for the money had been returned in
many instances under an agreement between
Mr.. Dauphin ard the Postmaster General, and
now the former wishes to withdraw and secure
these funds, and now his counsel 1nvOkeS equity
to assist them in violating an act of Congress.
MI Southland raised the point that while the
matter being unavailable nevertheless was
mailed and reached its destination, the Post
master General had no right to break the seal
unless by due process of law.
MI. Freeman said this point was only as to
matter transmitted In the ordinary pouch. They
letter on reaching its destination, and he cited
an order requiring such letters to be returned to
the Office where posted. They might take the
injunction, but the respondent could not obey
1t. He had done no more than Issue the order.
Z they wanted to reach him it must be by man
damus to compel the revocation Of the orde..
To stop its execution they must enjoin the post.
master at New Orleans. who is charged with the
thorfty had ceased, and il the postmaster at
New Orleans refused to obey him the respondent
could not remove it, but it is probable that the
President would. Mr.. Freeman then claimed
hat the only remedy the complainant had WAS
by law. If the law under which the Postmaster
General acted is constitutional they could not
suit In trover-the value Of the
letters.
The court took the papers, and reserved its de-
cision.