Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-04-04
THE POOL ACT
he ieTed TO be Udc0nssitutionai, Null
and Void, Because OF the
Very Grave Omission Of words and
Phrases-SOmethIngt TO Stir the
Blood OF Race Men,

NASHVILLE, April 3.-The American says:
The pool room question bids fair to be an
interesting one owing 10 on ssion 10 one
| OF the acts by which pool-sellng is author
| lied. Early 10 tine session Mr.. Galloway, of
Shelby, introduced S.nate bill No. 13, pro.
vIding for the incorporation of Jockey club
Companies. This bill passed. 1t did not
confer the right 10 sell pools, but simply
| conferred the power of organization as a
chartered company. Later ia the session
bills were introduced TO legalize pool-selling,
| Oae conhued the privilege 10 blood horse
associ atoms, etc, while the other made Il
privilege and fixed a tax on 1t as on other
pursuits. The former bill passed, after being
amended by puitirg a State tax of 5000 a
year on the association selling pools and by
providing that no pools should be cold 10
| drunken men or minors. This was thought
10 secure to bloed-horse associations legally
incorporated monopoly of poo-selipg, but
those who had Tried TO have il N sde a priyi-
lege free 10 all who would pay the tax, now
turned their attention to the jockey club bill
Legal advice was taken, and 1t was found that
any persons securing a charter under the
Jockey club bill, and complying with the pro-
visions Of the other act, would have the
right to sell pools. e nder this decision several
jockey club associations b ave been org anizsd
enc in NsshvIle-the Rock City Jockey Cub
SOupdhy WHICH nt5 d'T5duy opened DOOl-
room and is selling Gu the New Orleans
races. Hearing that Inc cJnstitutionality Of
The jockey club act had been questioned
upon technical grounds. an American reporter
went out TO ind something about it. The
act on HE with the secretary Of state was
examined, and the TACT pointed out that in
the enacting clause Of the law was an omis-
sion OF several words prescribed by the con-
stitution as necessary.
Section 20, article ii, of the constitution
says: The style OF the laws of the State
shall be, Be At enacted BY the General Assemble
Of the State Of Tennessee In no section OF
The act does this occur. The words Be IL
en0chd appear, but not by the General Assem-.
bly, Of the State of Tennessee
A prominent lawyer, when asked about it,
card that 1t was general principle of consti-
tional law that where FIRMS are prescribed
Ter legislative scioD, they ere in the nature
OF Limitation upon its authority, and
that the constitutional provisions which
establish them are equivalent to a
declaration that the legislative power
should be exercised under them, and
that statute not observing them would
plainly be Intellectual. "a word or phrase"
said be, omitted from an indictment. though
merely formal, will invalidate The indict.
ment." He mentioned case which occurred
in Nevada, and which was very similar to
this case. The constiiu "a of Nevada pro-
vides that the enacting clause of every law
shall be: "Ihe people OF the State of Nevada,
represented in Senate and Assembly, do en-.
act as follows" An act was passed in
which the word Senate wac omitted,
the enlcting clause reaiing: "Ths PEG.
pie of the Stste OF Nevada, rep.
resented in Assembly, do enact as fol-
lows" and the act YVES held void The chief
justice (Hawley) in giving this decision says
the clause of the constitution which declares
that the style of the laws Of the State shall
be in the form prescribed sis an imperative
mandate Of the people 10 their sovereign ca
pacity to the Legislature, requiring that all
laws to be binding upon them shall upon
their face express the authority by which
they were enacted, and as this act
comes 10 us without such authority
appearing upon its face, it is not a
Law" at follows" continued the lawyer,
"that there is no law authorizing the iucot-
poration of jockey clubs; and, in conse-
quence, individuals who assume 10 sell pools
as a company organized under the act of
March II, 1888, subject themselves 10 the
penalties provided for the violation of the
other act TO regulate pool selling"
The question is an interesting one and will
probably be tested in the courts.