Daily tobacco leaf-chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1890-1895, 1891-09-19
To BE- OR NOT TO Be
That Is the Question Concern
ing the Louisiana Lottery.
A Test Case In the United
States Supreme Court.

Attorney General Miller Files His Re
ply to the Briefs of the Counsel fol-
the Representatives of the Gigantic
swindle which Has Cleared Millioni
Since Its Organization.
WASHINGTON, Sept 10. = Attorney
General Miller has filed in the supreme
court of the United States his reply tc
briefs filed by counsel for j. l.. Rapiel
and George w. Dupre, representing the
Louisiana Lottery company. Each OF
these cases is an application for dis.
charge by writ Of habeas corpus from
arrest for an alleged violation of the
anti-lottery legislation of the United
States.
Rapier was arrested under an informa-
ton in the district court for the south
ern district of Alabama. Dupre was ar
rested under two indictments in the Cir
cult court for the eastern district of
Louisiana. The charge against RapieT
and against Dupre in one indictment was
mailing of newspaper containing an
advertisement of the Louisiana lottery,
and the other indictment was for the
mailing of letter concerning the lot
terry.
ATTORNEY General Miller, in ldress-
ing himself to the constitution ity of
the law, raised by counsel for the petit
TONERS, avs: Ordinarily, under such
circumsta ances it would seem that the
question of the constitutionality of the
legislation involved should be deemed
settled. 1t seems, however, otherwise.
The revenues poured into the Golfers Of
Al. T Nv Ire
witless victims are too large to be sur
rendered without another struggle A
very small piece of those revenues suf-
ficies to pay for making a new contest
Accordingly, nothing daunted by the
fact that this ne.arious scheme is under
the ban of public olinion, of Legislative
enactment and of judic al decision, the
most eminent counsel in the land are
here, making very astute, but, as l
think, very sophisti al presentation of a
bad cause"
Continuing he says: much stress is
laid on the fact that Louis the Four
teenth, George Washington, and even
preachers of the gospel have III times
past believed in and profited by lot
teries. He might have added that per
sons no less illustrious and worthy, con
temporaries of these same men, in
France, England and in this country,
believed in and encouraged the use Of
the holy inquisition and the burning OF
heretics, quakers and witches. the inter
est of pure and unedefiled reAgion'; yet,
it will hardly do to insist that the gov
ernment of the United States would,
therefore be bound to lend its aid to
such practices, III the interest of consti-
IA II ntt NtNf Nrrn1,
made to revive them now"
The attorney general takes up each of
the points raised by the petitioners coun-
sci and finds that no provision of the
constitution is violated by the anti-lOt-
tery law
In conclusion, he says: Each of the
petitioners is seeking discharge from ar
rest, under Indictment or information,
for illegally depositing unmailable mat
ter in the mails. Whether the law by
its terms authorizes the postal officials
TO throw out matter deemed to be un-
mailable, and whetherit it is competent for
congress to authorize such action by the
postoffice officials, are questions not in
volved in any of these cases. Nor does
It seem to me that they are gases in
which, if the law were found to be in
Vhllu Ill llldl particular, ~ NOll'l lltCSO-
sarily be invalid USder the decisions Of
this court i'll its entirety. My under
standing is that the decisions, not
only of this court, but general
ly. hold only that where IA num-
Der of acts are designated i'll
the statute as constituting particular
crime. and RS to some of such acts the
legislation is unauthorized, the courts
cannot be required to select out such
acts as are within the authority of the
legislature and enforce the law as to
them, rejecting it as to the others.
81 think no decision will be found
wherein it is held that if an act defines
different offenses and provides for their
punishment, the fact that as to one of
the offenses the legislation was unau-
thorized renders the entire legislationin-
valid And so if the act defines and
prescribcs punishment for an oifense,
the fact that it also, Independently Of
such provision, imposes duties on Off
GERS which are unauthorized by the con-
stitution is immaterial. II am correct
in this discrimination, then the provis-
ion for the punishment of mailing ul-
mailable matter is III no way dependent
upon those prescribing duties of postof
nee officials in relation to such matters,
but each may stand or fall independent
ly of the other