New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-15
An TNPORT4NT DECISION

The opinion given by Mr.. Chief-Justice Waite
in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the
case of Stone OF AL plaintiffs in error agt the State
of Mississippi covers substantially the question of
the legality Of lotteries, and must exercise an adj
verse influence upon the prosperity of those still in
existence 1t supplements the special statute of the
United States which closes the mails against all
correspondence respecting lottery business. The
State of Mississippi had authorized lottery COM
pany, known as The Mississippi Educational and
Manufacturing Aid Society" in 1867. In 1870 an
act was passed to give effect to that clause of the
State Constitution which prohibits the licensing of
lotteries by the Legislature. suit was brought by
the State to suppress the " Educational and Manu-
featuring Aid Society,"" and judgment of custer was
declared against it. Upon appeal this was affirmed
by the Supreme Court of the State and the case
was then brought to the Supreme Court of tho
United States for review 1t was argued that when
the State undertook to make unlawful lottery
which had been established by law, it sought to
impair, in an unconstitutional way the validity of
a contract.
Mr.. Chief-Justice Waite, in giving tho opinion of
the Court took strong ground. He declared that
the Legislature which granted the charter had no
authority to bargain away, for a certain percent
age of tho lottery profits to be paid over to it, the
police power of tho State in the regulation of the
public morals. We have it now of record, as the
opinion of our highest judicial tribunal and court of
last resort, that lotteries denorazing in their
effects, are against public policy, and are to be
treated like other nuisanccs that they are species
of gambling; that they disturb the checks and
balances of n wcll-Orlercd society; that they
multiply the number Of spectators and gamblers,
living on the expectation of what chance may
award them from the accumuatiOns Of others"
Government the Chicf-Justicc held, cannot by any
l., foff 10; 20
press whatever has proved noxious and cOrrupting.
This reserved right is based upon grounds of public
policy and the duty of legislators to guard against
whatever may be injurious to society Mt large.
When lottery charter is granted, it is with the i'm
piled reservation that it may at any time be
abrogatcd should the public good require it.
1t is difficult to see, after this decision, how any
lottery company have any standing I'm any Court:
how it can enforce its own contracts with parties
who do not please to abide by them; or how 1t can
either sue or be sued Every lottery corporation in
the country comes under the ban Of this decision,
though it may have chest full of charters from
State Legislatures. Should il be successful in the
local Courts, its opponents will have the best of It
whenever they can contriyo to get into Federal
tribunals upon appeal. Indeed, we do not see how
even these can ignore the law as laid down by the
Chicf-Justcc and in States in which lotteries are
forbidden by law, operations against them will be
greatly simpliicd. Is any sensible man sorry for
thiSi Why should no be, when our moralists for
nearly century have been demonstrating that
gambling is sure to ruin the credit the character the
material prosperity Of those who engage in it Com
mon people almost always speak of "pa ring in tho
lottery" It il nstinctiyry felt that such spccuaons
differ only in name and method from fighting the
tiger " sud riskng money on the turn Of cards and
dice. or upon the rolling Of ball. What the Chief
;o4 1,Nt,,
bankruptcy. intcmpcrancc, family suffering, and
possibly suicide. We have now the opinion Of the
Supreme Court and that of Mr.. G.. I. Braurcgard
respecting the legality of lotteries. We inclined
to believe that the former will be found the
stronger in the long run.