Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-11-22
LOTTERY LAW DECISION.
AN OPINION OF IMPORTANCE REIN DEHED BY ATTORNEY GENER-
 AL MILLER.
Prizes can he given upon Results Of the Election---The Law aims only at
 Regular Lotteries.

In response to tine inquiries made by Postmaster General Wananaker, under date of October G. 1890, as to whether ad- vertisements in newspapers of the guess ing contest" in its various phases. are in violation of section 3984, of tine Revised statutes, as amended by the anti-lottery act of September 19. 1899, Attorney General Miller has submitted his opinion, in which he holds in the negative
 With other inclosures the Postmaster General transmitted the advertisement of the Cincinnati Enquirer setting forth one of these projects in detail. and as this case presents the material question dis tinctly, the Attorney General makes use of it for the purpose of his answer The scheme for the enterprise advertised by the Enquirer is that 1t will give to the sender or senders of the first gueSs giving the correct or nearest correct number of votes of the democratic and the republican candidate for the office of Secretary of l State for the State of Ohio at the ther 1 pending election the spn of S100 Other 1 amounts are offered for the second and ! third best guesses. etc. The total amount ! of the offer is $500 Other details are l fully set forth in the opinion, after which 1 the Attorney General says: If this of | | be a scheme devised for obtaining money under false pretenses. Being made in 1 good faith, the gifts are doubtless offered 1 with the purpose of increasing directly as well as indirectly the sale of the issues of 1 the newspaper, and of rendering it's busi- ness of increased value to those who offer the prizes
 After quoting the statute in point, the l Attorney General continues: ''The pre- hibition directly material to this inquiry Is: Nor shall any advertisement of any lottery or gift enterprise of any kind offer ing prizes dependent upon lot or chance be carried in the mail or delivered by any postmaster or letter-carrier.'
 In construing this law 1t Is not to bt forgotten that 1t Is not only penal. but that it is in derogation Of the right oI privilege usually accorded to citizens II the use of the mails. It is, therefore, tC be strictly construed as against the Gov ernment It Is clear that the statute i, directed against only such enterprises as are dependent upon lot or chance. Il will hardly be contended that the enter prise under consideration was dependen upon lot. Was it dependent upon chance within the meaning of the statute? Il seems to me this question must be an swered in the negative. l am quite clea that estimates, made upon the probabl, political action of the people in givel State in pending election, can not b' said to be dependent upon chance, with in the meaning of this statute. and tha therefore this enterprise was no infrac ton of the lottery law in question. II conclusion. 1t may not be improper [, say that this law was framed with yiey to the suppression of certain will-knowl and widespread agencies for evil; and Is certainly not wise to embarrass its ex ecution by strained or unnatural con struction, in reaching after practices no thought of as a motive for its enact | ment"