The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1890-11-12
! CONCERNING GUESSING CONTESTS,
The Attorney General Decides Thnt News.
pnpers May Publish Them.

AHe Httorhey Neuerut Dcciues That News.
papers May Publish Them.
WAsntSoroS, Nov. 1l.-In response ia
tho inquiries made by Postmaster Gen.
eral Wanamaker, under date Of October
G, 1890, as to whether advertisements in
newspapers Of the guessing contest" in
its various phases are in violation of sec.
ton 1894 OF the revised statutes ns
amenaea=Ay.the anti.lottery act of Sen.
tember 10. 1890, Attorney General Miller
has submitted his opinion, in which he
holda in the negative.
With other enclosures the Postmaster
General transmitted the advertisement
Of the Cincinnati Enquirer, setting forth
one of these projects in detail, and az
this case presents the material question
quite distinctly, the Attorney General
make use OF it for tho purpose OF bis
answer. The scheme for the enterprise
advertised by the Enquirer is that it will
give to the sender or senders OF first
guess giving the correct, or nearest cor
rect number OF votes Of the Democratic
and Republican candidates for the Office
OF Secretary Of State for the State OF Ohio,
in the pending election, the sum OF Sl00
eEch. Other amounts arc. offered for the
second and third best guesscs, making
the total amount $500. .iE5l'.
Other details are fully set forth in the
opinion, after which the Attorney GEN
eral says: ~, z, X
I'll this offer were not made in good
faith it would bo scheme devised ior
obtaining money under false prstenses,
Being made in good faith, the gifts arc
doubtless offered with the purpose OF in.
creasing directly as well as indirectly the
eale OF issues Of the newspaper and of
rendering its BUSINESS of increased value
to those who offer the prizes"
Alter quoting the statute in point the
Attorney General continues:
"The prohibition directly material to
this inquiry is: Nor shall any news-
paper republication containing any ad-
vertisement Of any lottery or gift enter
prise OF any kind Of prizes dependent on
lot or chance be carried in the mail or
delivered by any postmaster or letter
carrier.,"
In constituting this law it is not to be
forgotten that it is not only penal, but
| that it is is derogation OF the right OF
privilege usually accorded to citizens in
the uso OF the mails. 1tis, therefore, to
be strictly construed rs against the Gov.
ernment. It is clear that the statute il
directed against only such enterprises as
are dependant upon lot or chance. Il
will hardly be contended that the enter
prise under consideration was dependeni
|upon lot. Was it dependent upor
chance within the meaning Of the stat.
ute ? Itseems to me this question should
be answered in the negative. Ian
quite clear that estimates made upor
the probable political action OF the peo
pie in q given State in a pending elec
| ton cannot said to be dependent upor
chance within the meaning Of this stat
ute, and that, therefore, this enterpris.
was no infraC,ion Of the lottery law il
question. In conclusion, 1t may not bt
| improper to say that this law wa.
framed with view to the suppression
OF certain well known and widespread
agencies for evil, and it is certainly no
i wise to embarrass its execution b,
strained or unnatural construction, ir
reaching after practices not thought o
as a motive for its enactment.