The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-06-13
RACH9RACK ARGUMENTS,
Hearing Today on the Ger
iorari Proceedings
at Trenton.
JUDGE CROSS ON BooKMAKING
He Calls 1t and Pool-Selling q
Species of Lottery-Mc-
Dermott Denies.
JUDGE CROSS ON BooKMAKING.
Special to The Jersey city Nelss.

Special to The JERSEY CITY Ne16s.
The argument in the proceedings
which are brought in the Supreme Court
to.test the constitutionality of the race
track laws, was begun this morning be-
fore Judges Depue, Albeit and Lippin-
colt. The matter was brought before the
Court on a cerriorari, which brought up
for review the licenses granted under th
law to the tracks by the various town
ships in which they are located.
There was large array OF legal talent
in the Court, The Law and Order Peo-
pie were represented by r. V. Lindabury,
Frank Bergen and ex-Judge Joseph
Cross of Elizabeth and j. Il. Emory or
Newark, and the race tracks by Allan
McDermott. Chairman of the Democratic
State Committees; Robert Adrain. Presi-
dent of the Senate; Samuel kallsch, OF
Newark; Frederick A. Rex, or Camden,
while eX- Judge Abel |. Smith of Hoboken
appear red for the township of North Ber-
gen. in which the Gutenberg track is
situated.
MR.. LINDABURY OPENS
Mr.. Lindabury began proceedings by
asking that the testimony as TO what
constitutes book making and pool selling.
which was taken in respect 60 the Gntlen-
berg, Gloucester and Elizabeth tracks be
applicable to Monmouth.
Mr.. McDermott objected, and Mr..
Lindabury gave notice that testimony
would be taken in that case as well.
Each side was given three hours in
which to present its argument.
LICENSE LAW ATTACKED.
Judge Cross opened for the prosecution.
He attacked the license law first, and
claimed that it was unconstitutional, as
il violated that section of the State Con-
stitutlon which says that the legislature
shall not pass special or private laws.
He then proceededto show that the law
was special in as much as the power to
license the tracks is so restricted by
unlawful Limitations and condi.
tions, as TO be local and
special instead of general throughout
the State. He also claimed that the act
was intended to be restrictive and TO In
vest existing race courses with nlonopo-
Iistic privileges, as it was evident that
the act applies TO tracks that existed at
the timeof iGspassageand trackthaG came
into existence month after its passage
could not come under its provisions.
FOURTH CLASS CITIES EXCLUDED.
Mr. Cross next proceeded to show how
the law excluded Ilrst class cities which
made it special aud not general.
Mr.. Cross next argued that the act
violated the Constitution, inasmuch as
it granted TO certain corporations and
individuals exclusive privileges, i'm
munities and franchises and was d special
law regulating the internal affairs OF
towns and counties. 1t regulated the
police power in certain municipalities
and authorized the governing bodies of
those particular municipalities to permit
the carrying on of certain practices
which were otherwise illegal.
UNLAWFUL POWERS.
The next point raiSeu by Mr.. Cross was
that the delegation of power TO license,
by the act, is made in an unlawful man
ner, as it is delegation of the same
ls,,., harV hi
the same territorial limits. The grant is
either in the governing body of a mun1cl-
pality or the Board of FreehoIders of the
county and refusal of license by one IS
10 bar to an application TO or grant BY
the other.
Mr.. Cross then attacked the law au-
thorizing book making and pool selling.
'.This," he exclaimed g is unconsti-
tutional, as it was part OF the whole
scheme, and they were TO be construed to
get here. Acts referring and relating to
each other IN that manner have always
been construed together" Mr.. Cross.
argument on this point was lengthy and
exhaustive, and many authorities were
quoted in support OF his position.
THEY ARE LOTTERIES.
Then he turned his attention to book
making and pool selling. and claimed
they were unconstitutional, as they were
practically lotteries, desired the betting
ring of a race track. as shown by
the evidence, and argued that betting
ana gambling. according to decisions Of
the State Court, were practically
synonymous. The Louisiana Lottery,
which was declared unlawful, he claimed
was N erely betting that certain numbers
would win prizes just as poolselling and
bookmaking was betting that certain
horses would win prizes.
Mr.. Cross's last point was that the acts
construed as one were constitutional be-
cause they Iegalized crime and exempted
certain persons and localities from the
general laws of the State relative thereto.
Mr.. NDERMOTT's VIEW.
Mr.. Allan McDermoGt replied to Judge
Cross. fie said that the reasons given for
setting aside the license were burdened
with a misapprehension of the laws of
last winter. The first act under which
the tracks were licensed didnot authorize
gam bling. Before the passage of the
license law the things authorized TO be
done by the license, could be
lawfully done on any racetrack
owned by corporation under one
law of 1880. Ii toe licenses were nulli-
fed, corporations would not be placed at
any disadvantage. The act OF 1898 limits
the tracks on which racing eau be done
under the law of $780, This, he claimed.
disposed Of the prosecution that the two
laws were in pdri mGteria Mr.. Nc
Dermott then argued that betting and
bookmaking did not constitute lottery.
He argued that the tontine and all other
plans of insurance were games of chance
and as much lotteries as pool selling and
bookmaking.
The case was still on at recess.