New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-07-09
NEWS FROM WASHINGTON.
THE LOTTERY CONTROVERSY.
THE P0sTMAsTER-GENERAL RENDERS A DECISION
REvIvING THE KEY ORDER.


REyIvING THE KEY ORDER.
iBY TELEGRAPH To THE rRIsuNEi
WASHINGTON, July S.-The Postmaster-General
completed his decision on one branch of the lottery
controversy last night He says that he has care
fully considered Postmaster General Keys order of
November 49, 1879, which forbade the postmasters
at New-Orleans and New York 10 deliver registered
letters or pay money orders TO the representative
of the Louisiana Lottery Company, on the
ground that he was engaged in conduct
ing scheme or device for obtaining money
through the mails by means OF false and fraudulent
pretences. Misrepresentation and promises"
General Gresham remarks that there can be no
doubt that this order clearly justified. 1t ex-
pressly recites that the evidence which authorized
the Postmaster General TO act In the premises was
satisfactory to him. His action was, therefore. con-
elusive upon his subordinates and the other depart
ments of tho Government, so long as the statutes
remained in force. The only question in connection
with it which could be judicially examined relates
to the power of Congress to confer upon him the
authority under which he acted. The doctrine is
now settled that the courts will not interfere by
mandamus or injunction with an executive depart
ment in the discharge of its duties, unless they
OF character purely ministerial and involve no
exercise of discretion OF Judgment"
General Gresham then quotes Postmaster General
Keys order of February 27. 1880, and says:
" Ii appears by the recitals that suit has been
brought TO enjoin the execution of the first order,
aud that the complainant had appealed the case to
the Supreme Court of the United States. The
decision, therefore, of the court Of original jursdc
tion was adverse to bin, and the Postmaster-Gen-
eral consented to temporary suspension of that
order until the case should haye been heard and de-
termined by the court of last resort. The previous
order was no; revoked or cancelled. :.
It was simply and IN effect provided that during
the pendencY of tue appeal, the execution Of the
preceding order should be suspended. The dis
mis.al Of the appeal, therefore, in vacation by the
appellants counsel with the consent of the Solicitor
General put an end to the suspension aud restored
the binding effect of that order.
1T has been strenuously insisted that the original
order was not to be- enforced until the to
which the second order refers should have been
actually determined by the Supreme Court. can
not acqnieSce in this view, inasmuch rs the COM
plainant could at any time by dismssing the appeal
Withdraw the case from the determination OF the
Court Tho second order would thus, at tho option
OF the complainant, have the effect Of an absolute
revocation Of the preceding order. while mere sus-
pension OF il was obviously intended. There is no
difference between perpetual suspension and a
revocation.
The controlling. indeed the only question In
the case, was the constitutional power of Congress
to enact the statute. Upon that question have no
doubt The Supreme Court in EE pdrte Jackson. 80
IT, :. T.. 727. has affirmed the constitutionaty Of
section 1884, as amended by the act of July II.
1876 .. In view of this decision the constitu-
tonalty OF the section applicable 10 the case can
not be seriously questioned. have confined my
self to tho matters as they appear
lom tho records Of the Department. Something 9
was stated by counsel rpresentlng parties Ia inie-
est rs verbal agreements or understandings. but
have felt 1T liberty tO consider any other fact,
tuan such n the Department records establish
Tue first order WILL therefore, be executed as II tho
second had not bcenenterod."
The counsel fr the lottery company do not in-
tend to allow the to rest there however. They
have manla ned throughout that the company
they represent Is il legal concern engaged
In a legitimate business, and 10 IN no sense q
lraud.p Tney APPEAR confident that II they can
prove TO the sats,act of the Postmaster General
that the company Is not engaged in n scheme de-
yised ana intended To dcfraud the pubic Tor the
purpose Of obtaining money under false pretenses."
he must hold that it is ont tied 10 mail facilities
and privileges.