Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1891-05-20


COMMENTING on the postponemsnt of tue
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 ale in, aad careful reading
of them is not very reassurIng to those WHO
desire to see some effective restraint placed
upon this legalized gambling. The argu-
ment of the lottery lawyers upon the con-
stitutional questions involved ia very
strong: that of Assistant Attorney-GaDeral
Marry for the Government seems much
weaker than q really capable Attorney
General would have made it. If the law
lies with the right in the case we mast
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 theAttorneI Gen
erals office. Mr.. Maury has made the
best case that was possible for the Govern
ment in this controversy, and has, presum-
ably, acted in fall harmony with Attorney
General Miller, who has been prevented by
illness from preparing the brief in person.
The trouble is that the Government has not
m nch of case on the face of the papers.
| The measure which the Louisiana Lottery
| Company challenges before the Supremt
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 mails to news
papers containing lottery advertisements,
it may with equal propriety take similar
action in the case of liq uor advertisements,
playing-oard advertisements, bncket-shop
advertisements or any other which the
party in the majority at the moment may
choose to regard as immoral and per-
| nicious. There is, indeed, no end to the
mischief aad oppression to which primo
pie, once established, may not lead. 1t is
but natural, therefore, that the Constitu-
| ton should repudiate it in a general way,
and that it should be destitute of support
in precedent We cen readily see that the
A. 3iue5-,jenera4' 5 IF . li-It havo fou i
! it impossible to defend the law any bd5
I moral, and, to a certain extent, sentimental
grounds. As we see it, the question is not
| whether the Government can find any de-
Tense in laws already existent, 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 virtually confesses as much.
| What his brief means is that the Supreme
Court should make a. case for him-Wasb-
ington, ID. c. Critic Record.
The New York World comments on the
above as follows:
"Why did not the Acknowledgement then
discover the limitations of power and see
that the bill was so framed as to be conssi-
tutional? The World urgently pointed out
the necessity for such caution at the time,
and the reply uniformaly was that the At
torney- Generals Office had thoroughly
considered that matter. How comes Ii
then, the moment the law is questioned
the best the Attorney-Ge General can do is to
confess that he has no case and pray the
Court 'to make a case for him? -