Los Angeles herald., 1891-05-31
The Lottery Case .

Commenting on the postponement OF
the lottery case the New York World
says:
The supreme court has postponed the
hearing until autumn in order that the
case may be determined by full bench,
but the briefs are in, and careful read
ing of them is not very reassuring to
those who desire to see some effective
restraint placed upon this legalized gam
bling. The argument of the lottery
LAWYERS upon the constitutional ques-
tions involved is very strong; that OF
Assistant Attorney-General Maury for
the government seems much weaker
than really capable attorney general
would have made it. If the law lies
with the right in the case we must de-
pend 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
generals office. MIR. Maury has made
the best case that was possible for the
government in this controversy, and
has, presumably, acted in full harmony
with Attorney-General Miller, who has
been prevented by illness from prepar-
ing 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 supreme
court can be defended only on the
ground of moral expediency. Undoubt-
edly it is, as an abstract proposition, an
invasion of the liberty of the press and
an infringement of personal rights. The
oretically, if congress may deny the
use of the mails to newspapers contain
ing lottery advertisements, it may with
equal propriety take similar action in
the case of liquor advertisements, play
ing-card advertisements, bucket-shop ad-
vertisements 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 and oppression to which
such q principle, once established, may
not lead. 1t is but natural, therefore,
that the constitution should repudiate
it in general way, and that it should be
destitute of support in precedent. We
can readily see that the attorney generals
office may have found it impossible to
defend the law on any but moral, and,
to a certain extent, sentimental grounds.
AS we see it, thequestion is not whether
the government can find any defense in
laws already existing, but whether
the supreme court will, in view of
the gravity of the case, originate
law to fit this particular emergency.
The structures on Mr.. Maury strike us
as unjust He has no case, and he vir-
tualy confesses as much. What his
brief means is that the supreme court
should make case for him.-Washing-
ton Cd. o. Critic-Record.
The New York World comments on
the above as follows:
Why did not the attorney general
then discover the limitations of power
and see that the bill was SO framed as to
be constitutional? The World urgently
pointed out the necessity for such eau
ton at the time, and the reply uni
formly was that the attorney generals
office had thoroughly considered the
matter. How comes it, then,, that the
moment the law is questioned the best
the attorney-general can do is to con-
fess that he has no case and pray the
court "to make case for him?'