Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-11-11
GUESSING CONTESTS.
Advertisements Of Them Not . Viola
ton OF the Lottery Law.

OPINION OF TEE ATTORNEY oENERAL-A TEST
CASE FROM A CINCINNATI PAPER-0UEssISa
THE RESULT OF POLITICAL CONTESTS NOT DE-
PENDENT on CHANCE.
An important decision has Just been rendered
BY Attorney General Miller as TO whether ad-
vertisements in newspapers OF the guessing
contest" in its various phases are in violation
OF what 10 known as the anti-lottery law. Tho
opinion was rendered in compliance with q re-
quest Of Postmaster General wanamaker. who
wished to know what was the law governing
this matter.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.
In his opinion Attorney General Miller re-
fsrs to Enclosures transmitted to HIM from the
Post Office Department, containing. among
other papers, the advertisement OF the Cincn-
natl Ehquirer setting forth one Of these pro-
1ects IN detail, and as it presents the material
question quite distinctly the Attorney General
made use OF it for the purposes OF the
answer. This scheme il described as follows.
The newspaper offers to give to the sender of
the firss guess" giving the correct or nearest
correct number OF votes OF the democrats and
| rotary of state Of Ohio at the next election
SlOO each, and to the sender OF the second
correct or nearest correct guess (if no correct
guesses are received) OF the vote Of either can
didste, $50 each, and TO the
: ssGa'r IS Of ess ss third hi ,S guess sender.
of the next fifteen correct or nearest guesses.
thus Offering to give the amount Of $500 to
thIrty-six persona Blank forms are printed in
the issues Of the paper wherein to record the
guesses, and day Is fixed when tho contest is
to end. There is no limit to the guessing, and
each person can guess as frequently as is de-
sired.
NOT DEPENDENT UPON LOT OR CHANCE.
The Attorney General says that il this offer
we're not made in good faith il would be a
scheme devised for obtaining money under
false pretenses Being made in good faith the
e1its are doubtless intended to increase the cir
cuiation OF the newspaper. He quotes the
statute and concludes that it is clear
that it is directed against only such
chance. 1t will hardly be commended. he
thinks, that this enterprise was dependent on
lot Was it then dependent on chance, he asks,
within the meaning Of the ststute2 1t seems
70 20 me that this question must be answered in
statistics might know approximately the num-
Der OF republican voters and the number
OF democratic voters in the state OF Ohio. he
might approximate the ratio in which one and
the other might increase or decrease in a given
year. 1t Is quite likely that his estimates would
often be wide of the mark, but il would
not be by reason OF chance, but by reason
of causes In regard to which he had formed
erroneous estimates. am quite clear
that estimates made upon the
probable political action of the people in a
given state in a pending election cannot be
said to be dependent upon chance within the
meaning of the statute and that therefore this
enterprise was no infraction Of the betting law
in question.
INTENTION OF THE LAW
"1n conclusion" the opinion reads, at may
not be improper to say that this law was frame d
with view to the suppression of certain we'll
known and widespread agencies for evil and it
Is certainly not wise to embarrass its execution
by a strained or unnatural construction in
reaching after practices not thought Of as a
motive for its enactment"