San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1890-11-18
A LOTTERY LAW DECISION.
An Opinion of Importance Render
Cd nv Attornev-General Miller

An Opinion of Importance Render
ed by Attorney General Miller.
WASHINGTON, d. c., November Is.
In response to the inquiries made
by Postmaster g eneral Wanamaker,
under date of October 6, 1890, as to
whether advertisements in news
papers of the guessing contest" in
its various phases, are in violation OF
section 1854, of the revised statutes,
as amended by the anti-lottery act of
September 10, 1890. Attorney-General
Miller has submitted his opinion, in
which he holds in the negative.
With other Enclosures the postmas-
ter general transmitted the advertise
ment Of the Cincinnati Enquirer set
ting forth one of these projects in
detail, and as this case presents the
material question distinctly, the at.
torney general makes use of it for the
purpose of his answer. The scheme
for enterprise advertised by the En-
quirer is that it will give to the sender
or senders of the first guess giving the
correct or nearest correct num-
Der of votes of the democratic
and the republican candidates
for the office of secretary of
state for the State of Ohio at the then
pending election the sum Of $l00.
Other amounts are offered for the sec
ond and third best guesses, etc. The
total amount of the offer is $500.
Other details are fully set forth in the
opinion, after which the Attorney
General says: IF this offer were not
made in good faith, 1t would be q
scheme devised for obtaining money
under false pretenses. Being made
in good faith, the gifts are doubtless
offered with the purpose of increasing
directly as well as indirectly the sale
of the issues of the newspaper, and of
rendering its business of increased
value to those who offer the prizes"
After quoting the statute in point,
the Attorney General continues:
THE prohibition directly material to
this inquiry lie: Nor shall any news
paper or publication containing any
advertisement of any lottery or gift
enterprise of any kind offering prizes
dependent upon lot or chance be car
ried in the mail or delivered by any
postmaster or letter-carier.'
In constituting this law it is not to
be forgotten that it is not only penal,
but that it is in derogation of the
right or privilege usually accorded to
citizens in the use Of the mails. 1t is
therefore, to be strictly construed as
against the Government. 1t is clear
that the statute is directed against
only such enterprises as are
dependent upon lot or chance.
1t will hardly be continued that
the enterprise under considera-
ton was dependent upon lot. Was
1t dependent upon chance within the
meaning of the statute? 1t seems to
me this question must be answered IN
the negative. L am quite clear that
estimates, made upon the probable
political action of the people in CIV
en- state in pending election, cannot
be said to be dependent upon chance,
within the meaning of this statute,
and that therefore this enterprise was
no infraction of the lottery law I'm
question. In conclusion, it may not be
improper to say that this law was
framed with view TO the suppress
sion of certain we'll known and wide
spread agencies for evil; and it GER
tainly is not wise to embarrass its ex-
ecution by strained or unnatural COIL
structiou, in reaching after practices
not thought of as motive for its en-
aotment.