Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-05
In the Case of the Indicted Race
Track Men.
JUDGE WILSON'S STRONG PLEA
For the Quashing Of the lndict'
ment.
DECISIONs RE Z r V E D

| people, when Mr. Jere NJ. Wilson OF counsel
| for the indicted ivy City bookmakers be-
| gan the closing argument on the motion OF
the indicted parties to quash the indict-
ments, because. as alleged by them, the in
| dictments set out no onense.
In commencing his argument, Mr.. Wilson
| stated he would confine himself to but two
| or three things, and he would read but few
| authorities.
| Read as many as you like, judge" re-
marked Judge Cole. The case. is both an
interesting and important one. and / will
| hear all you have to say
OF What EnEeman Was Convicted.
In the first place. said Mr.. Wilson. he de-
! sired to correct the statement of Mr. Biz
ney that MIR. Engeman had been convicted
of pool selling in New Jersey. Mr.. Enge-
man had been convicted of running a dis
| orderly house, in that pool selling was per-
| mitted on the track controlled by him. He
had been convicted, but had been subse-
| quently pardoned Mr.. Wilson reasserted
| what his colleague had asserted yesterday,
| that Engeman had come here in good faith,
confident that horse racing was not unlaw-
full here.
"Oh. there is no controversy about that"
remarked Judge Cole.
| But Mr.. Wilson said that not only was
| horse racing not unlawful here, but also that
bookmaking was not unlawful At the outset,
| he desired to impress upon the court the
| fundamental principle that all penal stat
| utes must be construed strictly, 80 that in
endeavoring to make out the offense the
| statute must not be strained.
| Taking up the indictment in question Mr.
| wilson explained that, While the defendants
| reserved the right to demur to it, believing
IL to be defective throughout, they contend
| ed at the present time that the only thing
that the first count of the Indictment charg-
| ed was the lawful thing of horse racing
But the district attorney had claimed. said
| Mr.. Wilson, that the other count did set
out an offense, that of bookmaking and
| MIR. Birney had quoted many authorities in
| support of his contention that bookmaking
was game of chance. But there was a
Roland for every oliver, said Mr. Wilson.
and the defense could cite as many author
| tiles TO the contrary. But the defense
would not quote them for the reason that
| the question would be after all left just
where it started.
| Horse Racing Centuries Old.
Horse racing, said Mr.. Wilson, was CEN
| turtles old. and betting on them was not
new invention by any means. Mr.. Birpey
had contended that about all the evils
| known to humanity sprang from betting
on horse racing. Men would bet however
said Mr. Wilson, at any time and in every
place with one. another on about every
| imaginable thing, and if man found no
other man to bet with, he would bet with a
woman if one was around. In some places
betting was absolutely prohibited. but in
| others it was permitted under certain regu-
iations. and the defendants contended that
the act of 1891 permitted ii in certain parts
of the District, lying beyond the ene-mile
limit.
Congress said Mr. Wilson, undoubtedly
/ intended to SO legalize betting in the Dis
trict, If the intention could be ascertaned
from a reading and consideration of the de-
bate on the bill in Congress. Mr.. Birney
-IN. %k,N h.
| gather the intent OF the legislative body,
but. stated Mr.. Wilson. the United States
Supreme Court had declared that course to
be not only the right. but also the duty,
of the courts. The act of 1888 referred
| alone to games which were per Sc games of
chance but bookmaking was not a game of
chance played on a table.
An Illustration.
SHOULD the district attorney, Mr.. Cole
man and 1 meet in the house of Mr.. Bir-
ney," said Mr.. Wilson, land having learned
from The Star that next day there will be
a horse race at the Benning track, which
| track" remarked Mr.. Wilson, amid much
| laughter, seems to be the greatest race
course in the land. and is now only closed
for repairs. and my friends Birney and
Coleman should make one or more bets be-
| tween themselves on the race, the district
| attorney recording them on little table, no
| one would seriously contend that that was
a setting up of a gaming table or gambling
| device. But that is just what my friend
Birney is contending in the present case"
That Congress. said Mr.. Wilson, never in
| tended to refer to bookmaking in the act of
1883 was undoubtedly true, for the reason
| that not until the passage of the act of 1891
| was bookmaking referred to. If Mr.. Biz
neys contention was true, Congress had
made one law for one part of the District
and another law for another part.
| Some Pertinent Questions.
Birney. that Congress had not the power
to do that?"
well" replied Mr.. Wilson, II won't say
that it had not, although Congress is sup
posed to legislate for the whole District.
But that question does not arise in this
case"
Suppose" inquired Judge Cole, 1.-The act
of 1888 had referred to bookmaking, what
effect would the act of 1891 have? That
question has constantly required to my
mind"
..Wby. vour honor" RENTED Mr. Wilson.
''the act of 1891 would have repealed the
former one The two acts, respecting book
making, cannot stand together"
But" remarked Judge Cole, lit is not
claimed that they do"
But. your honor" said Mr.. Wilson, 'if
there is any doubt as to the application of
the act of 1888 the defendants are entitled
to that doubt
Yes" remarked the court, that is I'M
doubtedly true
Authorities Cited.
Mr.. Wilson next proceeded to the reading
of great many authorities, which he con-
tended sustained his assertion that where
a subsequent statute even in general lam
guage antagonized an express provision of
former act the earlier act is thereby re-
pealed. 1t had been contended by the dis
| trict attorney that the act of 1891 did not
repeal the act of 1883, because the later act
only referred, If at all, in general language
to the earlier one. and Mr.. Wilson devoted
considerable time to the reading of author
tiles which, he claimed, sustained a con-
. | trary position.
, Furthermore, stated Mr.. Wilson, the title
| of the act OF 1891 referred to the term book
making, and with that act Congress for
the first time in it's history took I'D and
dealt with bookmaking and pool selling
do 1 understand you, inquired Judge
Cole, ito contend that not until 1891 did
Congress ever intend to refer to or have in
mind bookmaking and pool sellng?"
Precisely, your honor" replied Mr. VIII.
son. And, as 1 have stated before. we
also contend that even if the act of ISS.
| could be construed to prohibit bookmakjng
the act of 1891 unquestionably repealed Sc
much of it referred to bookmaking and
) pool selling beyond the one-mile limit
. i Judge Wilson closed his argument shortly
after noon, but his attention was called by
Judge Cole to the fourth section of the ac,