Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1891-06-03
THE LOTTERY CASE.
Comment on the Cause of its Postpone.
ment.

Commenting On the postponemen'
of the lottery case, the New York World
says:
The supreme court has p stpO-ed ti {
nearing until autumn, III order that the
case may be determine by full bench,
but the briefs are in, aud careful
reading of them is not very reassuri e
to those who desire 10 see some effect
We restraint placed upon this legahZed
gambling. The argument of the lottery
awyeIs pDn the Constitutional QueS-
ton involved is very strong; that of
Asst. Atty.-Gen. Maury for the gov
ernment seems much weaker than a
really capable attorney 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-general s
Office as at present manned.
This is scarcely just to the attorney
generals office. Mr.. Maury has made
The best case that was possible for the
government IN this controversy, and
has, presumably, acted in full harmony
with Atty.-Gen. Miller. who has been
prevente by illness from p eparing the
brief in person.
The trouble is that the government
has not much of a case on the face of
he papers. The measure which the
Louisiana Lottery Company challenges
before the supreme court can be de-
Tended only on the ground OF moral ex-
pediency. Undoubtedly it is, as an
abstract proposition, an Invasion of the
berty OF the p ess and an infringe
ment of personal rights.
Theoretically, if Congress may deny
the use of the mails to newspapers con-
tanning lottery advertisements, it may,
with equal proprie y, take similar action
tn the case of liquor advertisements,
playing card advertisements, bucket
hhop advertisements or any other which
the party In the majority as the mo-
ment may choose to regard as immoral
and perricious.
There is, indeed. no end to the mis-
chief and oppression to which such
principle, once established, may not
lead. 1t is not natural, therefore,
that the constit .tion shou d repudiate
1t In general way, and that it should be
destitute of support in precedent. We
can readily see that the attorney-gen-
erals office may have found it impossi-
BILE to defend the law on any but moral
and, to a certain extent, sentimental
grounds.
As we see 1t, the question is not
whether the government can find any
defence In laws already existent, but
whether the supreme court will, in view
OF the gravity of the case, originate a
law to lit this particular emergency.
The rlctuTe5 on Mr.. Maury strike
us as unjust. He has no case, and he
confesses as much. What his
brief means is that the supreme court
should make case for him Wash
ing, ID. c. Critic Record.
The NetO York World comments on
the above as fCllows:
Why not the att rney general then
discover the limitations of power and
see that the bill was so framed as to he
The World urgently
pointed out the necessity for such eau.
tion at the time, and the reply nni-
formly was that the att )rney generals ,
office had thorouS Shly considered that
matter. How comes it, then, that the
the law Is questioned the best
The attorney general can do is to con-
less that he has no case. aud pray the
court Ito make case for himp"