The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1888-02-14
siderasion of bills relating to the Dis
trict of Columbia.
IorrERY ADVERTISING.


LOTTERY ADVERTISING.
The first bill called up was one pun
ishing advertising of lottery tickets IN
| the District of Columbia. 1t was opposed
by Mr.. Rogers, of Arkansas, upon con-
stitutional grounds. ssThe bill would,
he said, prevent any paper, no matter
| where published, from coming into the
District and would infringe the liberty
of the press
Mr.. Hemphill, OF South Carolina, did
not agree that the provisions of the bill
applied to any paper published outside
of the District, but admitted that that
was question upon which the best
lawyers might differ.
Mr.. Compton declared that he was not
an advocate of lotteries, but he did not
believe that the South could be sent to
heaven by compulsory legislation.
Society could not be regenerated by the
principles inculcated by Christian
motives.
Mr.. Browne, of Indiana, said that ac-
cording to his Interpretation of the bill
its provisions applied as much to papers
published in Maryland or New York cir
culating in the District of Columbia as
to papers published in the District, but
with that Interpretation he endorsed the
bill fully and without reservation.
Mr.. Grain, of Texas, took issue with
the argument that every scheme OF
chance was necessarily crime. He did
not believe that lottery which was au-
thorized by the organic law of a State OF
the Union belonged to the category of
crime
Mr.. Cum mings, of New York, said
that looking at the bill, not as lawyer,
but as man who pretended to have
modicum of common sense, he thought
that there was too much law in it. In
trying to correct an admitted evil the
House was opening the doors to greater
evil. The bill appeared to contain some
laws. Those laws not only interfere
with the liberty of the press, but also in
terfered, as the pending bill did, with lib
erty of the people; nor was
had been stirred up by Congress. They
had been stirred under the admiDistra-
ton of Grant, when the United States
Senate had passed the bill to abridge the
freedom of the press. Under the pro-
visions of that bill the editor of the most
obscure newspaper in the most obscure
corner of the most obscure State could
be dragged to the District of Columbia
and subjected to fine and imprisonment
by petty local tribunals. There was the
same seen in this bill. 1t not only
trampled on the freedom of the press
and of person, but it trampled on the
rights of the States. The bill was clear
in its provisions. 1t applied undoubtedly
to papers published outside, but circulat-
ing in the District of Columbia.
If Congress had the right to prescribe
what should be printed in the advertis-
ing columns of newspapers, it had the
right to exercise a censorship over the
editorial and news columns. If Congress
was then to exercise ed torial supervi-
sion over the entire press, who was to be
editor in chief? The distinguished gem
tleman at the other end of the avenue?
Who was to be the city editor? Was it
to be the Speaker of the House? Who
We're to be the reporters? The chairmen
of the committees? Where was the edi-
torial supervision to end? The House
was playing with fire. II had better
blow out the match and avoid confiagra-
ton.
Mr.. Oates, of Alabama, thought the
bill applied only to papers published in
the District, and on this ground opposed
it., as creating an unjust discrimination.
Mr.. Dougherty, of Florida, opposed the
measure for similar reason. If Con-
gress could establish censorship of the
press which would prevent report
ers lying about public men and pri-
vate individuals, he, for one, would
certainly vote to do SO, because he had
never seen anything so offensive to a
sense of public morality in any lottery
advertisement as he had seen in the ex-
pressed opinion of newspaper reporters
published as facts. Ii Congress could
pass bill which would require editors
and reporters to confne themselves to
a statement of facts instead of publish
ing their individual opinions as facts, it
would rebound to the good and welfare
| of all the people.
Mr.. Latham, of North Carolina, while
expressing his bitter hostility to lotteries,
denied the power of Congress to enact
legislation to difTuse morality among the
human race.
On motion of Mr.. Grain, the bill was
| referred to the Committee on the Ju-
| diciary-yeas, III; nays, 115.