The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-06-14

wanted the Court to understand that 1t
did not endorse the views OF The GuJ5en-
berg race track in this matter. He had
nothing TO say either for or against the
constitutionality of the race track laws.
In granting the license to Gutenberg the
committee had acted simply for the pur-
pose of keeping the control of the TRACK
within It's own hands. for if the COM
mittee refused to grant the license 10
the Jockey Club the Freeholdefs would.
At this point Senator Adraln objected
to Judge Smiths taking any more OF the
time OF the defendants in arguments OF
that nature,
The Court said it did not care to hear
anything further on that point, and then
Mr.. Adraiu addressed the Court. HIS
argument was mainly plea for the race
tracks and contained but little law. He
was sarcastic, aud cut the prosecution
deeply with his references to the Pnara-
sees of the nineteenth century. he
spoke of horse racing as a sport, enjoyed
by all men of sound mind and good
stomachs. The prosecutors were fanat-
les, who would not let you breathe II
they had their own way. Tne wit
nesses of the prosecution, as to bookmak.
ing. were lot of scrubs brought
over from New York, which was dis
grace to New Jersey. He claimed that
the laws were not passed in the interest
OF racstracks. as the prosecution asserted,
but in the interest of the people OF New
Jersey. He claimed that everything in
life was gambling, as it was matter of
chance. ana tnat the greatest gambler
was the farmer who took great chances
with his seed.
PROSECUTORS TAXPAYERS.
Mr.. r. l.. Lindabury followed for the
prosecutors. He answered Mr.. Rex's
argument that the prosecutors have no
right to prosecute the writ. In all the
cases except that of the Gloucester
people. the prosecutors were tax payers
and residents of the place in which the
tracks are located. In the case ofGloucester
the Chief Justice allowed the writ after
considering the same point ln pocket
borough like Gloucester any citizen of
Camden County should be allowed to
prosecute as he was interested in the
good governing OF the counties.
Mr.. Lindabnrv then enlarged upon the
argument made by Mr.. Cross yesterday.
He insisted that the license law was uu-
constitutional because 1t was special an d
Ii would quote authorities on that point
because the defendants had not denied
the assertion. He next took up the point
that the law was unconstitutional because
it authorized q lottery and said that the
scheme OF the two laws taken together
contained all the elements of lottery.
There was definite sum of money pub
licly distributed by lot or chance be-
tween Two persons, each of whom has
paid something for the chance of winning.
That. ne said, answered the most exact def
iuition of lottery that he had been able to
find, and it disposed of any question as to
whether or not bookmaking differs essen
TALLY from mere private betting. which is
not u crime. He quoted large number of
authorities In support of his pcsitou.
He next claimed that the two laws were
unconstitutional because, in effect. they
suspended general law of the State in
favor OF certain corporations and cities,
thus rendering the same act innocent
when done in one locality and crime
when done in another, and depriviug a
portion OF the people OF the State of the
equal protection of laws. The laws were
also Unconstitutional because they grant
ed special privileges by special laws.
THE ARGUMENT CLOSED.
j. r. Emory, OF Newark. VINO also re-
presented the prosecutors, followed Mr..
Linda bury. and brought the argument
to close.