The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-05-15

COMMENTING on the postponement of the lot
terry case the New York World says
The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing
until autumn in order that the case may be de-
termined by a full Bench. but the briefs are in,
and a careful reading of them is not very reas-
surfing to those who desire to see some effective
restraint placed upon this legallzed gambling.
The argument of the Lottery lawyers upon the
constitutional stions involved is very strong;
that of Assistant Attorney General MAuRY for
the Government seems much weaker than a
really capable At-torney-General would have
made it. If the law lies with the right in the
case we must depend upon the Court to discover
the fact without much help from the Attorney
Generals Office as at present manned.
This is scarcely just TO the Attorney-Generai's
office. Mr.. MAURY has made the best case that
was possible for the Government in this con
troversy, and has presumably, acted in full
harmony with Acknowledgement MILLER, who
has been prevented by illness from preparing
the brief in person. The trouble is that the
Government has not much of a case on the face
Of the papers. The measure which the Louisiana
Lottery Company challenges before the Su-
preme Court can be defended only on the
ground Of moral expediency. Undoubtedly it
is, as an abstract proposition, an invasion Of the
liberty Of the press and an infringement Of
personal rights. Theoretically, if Congress
may deny the use of the m ais to newspapers
containing lottery advertisements, it may with
equal propriety take similar action in the case
Of liquor advertisements, playing card adver-
tissments, bucket shop advertisements or any
other which the party in the majority at the
moment may choose to regard as immoral and
pernicious. There is, indeed, no end to the
mischief aud oppression to which such a prin-
cipls, ones established. may not lead. 1t is
but natural, therefore, that the Constitution
should repudiate it in a general way, and tina it
| should be destitute Of support in pre- cedent.
We can readily see that the Attorney -Gener-
ais Office may have found it impossible to de
fend the law on any but moral, and, to a certain
extent, sentimental grounds. As we see it.
the question is not whether the Government car
hnd any defence in laws already existent, but
whether the Supreme Court will, In view Of thu
gravity of the case, originate a law to lt thi'
particular emergency. The structures on Mr..
Maury strike as as unjust. He has no case, an6
he virtually eonfesses as much What his brief
means is that the Supreme Court should make q
case for hin.-HashtHgton ID. CO Criticize
cord.
The Neo York World on the abovl
as foilows:-
why did not the Attorney-General then dis
cover the limitations Of power and see that the
bill was so framed as to be constitutional? Tn
World urgently pointed out the necessity fol-
such caution at the time, and the reply uniform
Iy was that the Attorney-Generals Office hal
thoroughly considered that matter. How comes
it, then. that tine moment the law is questioned
the best the Attorney-Geueral can do is to con
fess that he has no case. and pray the Court I,
make a case for him."