The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-06-14
Continuance of Argument
on the Certiorari Hear
ing at Trenton.
ALLAN M'DERnoTr'S OFFENCE.
A Legitimate Business He Says
Senator Adrain Calls the Pros
ecution Nineteenth Gen.
tury pharisees.

Yesterday in the Supreme Court on the
constitutionality of the rece-traeK legis-
lation, the first part of the hearing haV-
ing been told iu yesterdays NEWS. Mr..
McDermott was speaking at the time the
NEWS went to press, at which hour he
was talking against the claim OF the
counsel for the law and order people
that bookmaking and poolselling were
species of lottery.
Mr.. McDermott proceeded to give the
definition of the word lottery" as he
finds It in the American Encyclopedia,
Webster's Dictionary. and from a large
number of recorded opinions dealing
with lottery litigation. He stated in the
way of sparentheses that he had exam
ined every opinion on the lottery question
That had ever Deen given IN the UnlIed
States.
He also cited number OF cases where
funds were raised by lotteries for churcne es
aud education al institutions by special
acts of the Leg islature, and he reached
the conclusion that a lottery is a distribu-
tion of prizes, and That The investors In
every scueme that has been declared
lottery will be found looking TO COM
7non fund which Is to De distributed Dy
chauce, and SO it has always been cousid-
cred by legislators. After Quotin sonie
old laws passed in reference 30 The regu-
lation of horse racing, and opinions bear
ing on pools aud comninatioHs OF pools.
he made the assertion that betting uDon
certain horse races Within this State Was
not iudiciable, and that 5ookmaEing was
nothing more, nothing less than betting
on horse races. Ihe word "bcokmakiDg"
had Its origin in the custom pursued at
English race courses OF cooking bets.
BOOKMAKING EXPLAINED.
rat ffft1rr IA
lose: the other beGtor, that the horse will
win The bet made by the oookiaaker
is. practically as though he said TO each
one VINO approached nim, Il Will bet that
you cannot name the winning horse. the
odds of the wager being determined Dy
Inv view Of the chance of your judgment
being correct" He may make one bet or
one hundred, but as to each bet ne Ia In
exactly the position or any other
bettor who assumes the negative
saHnce. This is exactly what ls
dole by everv one who WAgers tnat
,trtaftf horse will not wlfi---Ylere never
was bet made on horse RAGS or any
other event in which Que of The bettors
did not do exactly what the bookmaker
does when he makes bet. He then
quoted largely from the testimony In the
case or the Hudson County Jockey CLUB
10 show just how betting is carried on.
Ir answer to the attack made that one
of the race track laws is unconstitutional,
because it was private, local and special,
as it purports to regulate Inc Internal
affuirs OF towns and counties, he said IL
was somewhat misconsIrued. Ii is
claimed that The Legislature has no
right TO say that there shall be no race
tracks III cities having over 100000 popu-
lation, and that there can be race tracks
in cities with less than that number.
he held that il was Within the legisia-
tive power to prohibit ths maintenance
of rscetrack courses anywhere In the
STATE; that it was simply exercising
police power which the State mas. Tue
State may say THAI there can be exhibi-
tions Of racing which shall be legal IN
one place and not in another, providing
that ~. ere was difference III the size
and population.
BETTING LIMITS.
He quoted The 54Jn section of the
Crimes act. which declares that 1t is un-
lawful to keep a room or place Tor play
ing at billiards within three miles of the
main building of the College of New
Jersey or of Rutgers College, or of the
Drew Seminary or any University OF
New Jersey. and the act of 1851 provides
that No public race shall De held within
two miles of auy house appointed Tor
public worship of any persuasion IN this
province. While iu another section in
the same act 1t is an ofense TO sell liquor
within two miles of Morristown Asylum.
Samuel kaliscb. also arguing for the
licensing was only incidental to the value
of the race track laws; that II the lcens-
sing features are set aside there would be
no embarrassment to the corporations
He said in the Constitution OF 1877 there
was no prohibition against lotteries, aud
In connection with the present prohibi-
tory clause of the present State Constitu-
tfon he argued that IL does not prevent
authorizing private lotteries.
The particular clause is brief and reads
as folIows:-"No lottery shall be author
ized by this State, and no ticket in
auy lottery not authorized by
a law of this State snail be bought
or sold within the State" He argued
that the nrst paragraph of this clause
means that the State STALL nos BECOME a
party TO lottery schemes issued in its
name. as was the custom in former days,
and that tue secoud says that no ticket
in any lottery not authorized by the State
snail be put in circulation, and leaves the
Inference that the State has the right to
grant powers to private corporations to
conduct lottery IL hey so desire.
ToDAY's HEARINGS.
The argument in the cases to test the
constitutionality Of the race track was re-
suinedthis morning before Judges De-
pue, Abbett aud Lippincott. Frederick
a. Rex, one of the counsel for the
Gloucester track, began the argument
He appeared ostensbly as the counsel for
the city of Gloucester, which, in this pro-
ceedinc. is the defendant in one of the
cases. having granted the license which
was certloraried. He argued that the
certiorari had been improperly granted.
aud should be dismissed because the
prosecutors are not residents or faxpay-
ers of Gloucester city. and they are not
effected by the licenses. He claimed
that that cerLiorari would not lie in
power of prosecutors VINO nave sustain
ed no damage peculiar to themselves
He quoted numerous authorities TO show
that court would not listen TO an obJec-
tloa MADE to the constitutionatjty OF an
act by party whose rights 1t does not
aft .ci.
RE then turned his attention to the
cllim OF the prosecution that the act au-
thorlzing gambling on the tracks was
contrary TO the Constitution because
boolxmaking aud pool selling were
gambling. He claimed that book making
and pool selling did not constitute lot
terry. because the ststute plainly shows
that whatsoever may be the meaning OF
q the word lottery in common parlance. the
Gegisiature. by separating the offence OF
frtting up a lottery from gaming, plainly
1ntended to make distinctton between
. xVuinQ and lotteries.
~ JUDGE sDflTE SPEAKS.
1dge Abel j. Smith. Counsel Tor
Isnip CT North Bergeb followed.
<pat the, Township Committee