Evening star., 1894-01-04
THE CASE ARGUED.
The Ivy City Bookmaker's Indictments
in Court Today.
Counsel Lay Stress On the Decision Of
the Maryland COurts-The Two
Gambling Acts.


2 ascended the bench of the court this
morning he was confronted by the largest
assembiage of racing people ever seen be-
fore in a District court. the occasion being
the hearing of the motion to quash the in
dictments returned against Bookmaker Mar
vim and his three assistants for engaging
in bookrpaking at the Ivy City race track.
The indicted bookmakers were early pres
ent in court, together with their counsel,
Messrs. Jere NJ. Wilson and James Cole
man, but while many of the Ivy City man.
agement were also present, President Enge-
man was conspicuous because of his alb
sence when the case was called. Mr.. Cole
man stated that Engeman was detained in
New York, but expected to be here during
the day.
Upon the opening of the court, District
Attorney Birney stated that since the
raignment of the four men last week two
additional indictments had been returned
against them, and also against George H.
Engeman, and asked that the men be ar
raigned on those indictments. 1t was
agreed, however, that arguments on the mo-
ton to quash the first indictment should go
ahead. and that all of the indictments
should be discussed during the hearing.
Mr.. Coleman Begins.
Mr.. Coleman, for the bookmakers began
the argument, stating that he represented
desire to violate any law here or elsewhere.
The Ivy City management, said Mr.. Cole
man. had come here believing that they
would. in establishing racing and betting at
the Ivy CHy tracks, violate no law. They
had good reason to so believe. for never be-
fore had the act of 1888, relating to setting
up and keeping gaming tables other
gambling devices, been construed, to pre-
vent bookmaking beyond the one7mile limit.
No district attorney had ever before con-
tended. or even iEtimated. that the act of
1888 was violated. Your HONOR remarked
Mr.. Coleman, never construed II, and
even my brother Birney had never so con-
strued II until 1T was proposed TO run the
Ivy City meeting. The Benning races have
never been stopped, not even by MIR. Birney.
and the races at the latte, track We're al
lowed by him to be run until the 14th of
last month. Therefore L think, your honor,
that II is fair to presume that the Benning
races We're run with the consent il not with
the approval of the present district attor-
ney. so 1t was, your honor, that not until
We learned through the local press of the
district attorneys intention in respect To
the Ivy City meeting, did we learn that
betting Would not be permitted by him al
that track"
Forced to Bet.
Mr.. Coleman then went on to say that
Engeman and his associates coming here
under the belief that they had a legal right
to run their proposed meeting, had spent
many thousand dollars in preparing the
track and grounds and buildings for the
meeting in perfect good faith. When he
and his associates learned that they could
not bet within thei- regular betting ring
they had erected tent outside the mile
limit, so as TO conform to the law of 1901
and when they were informed that they
would not be permitted to carry on betting
even there, they had endeavored by every
Ia is
attorney to have the question judicially de-
termined by a test case. The district attor-
ney refused all such overtures. and finally
the Ivy city management were forced, in
order 10 settle the matter, to carry on bet
ting and submit to arrest and Indictment
The Two Laws.
The only question at issue, said Mr. Cole
man, was, Did the act of 1883 prohibit
bookmaking beyond the mile llnit?" He
contended that 1t did not, and he further
contended that even If it had prior to the
act of 1891, the latter act repealed the for
mer one in so much that the act OF, 1891
was passed for the expressed purpose of
legalizing betting beyond the one-mile limit
In support of the latter contention Mr.
Coleman read from the Congressional Record
an account or the debate in the Senate rela-
tive to the act of 1891, wherein ne claimed
IL was clearly demonstrated that IL was the
openly-declared object of the act to permit
betting beyond the one-mile limit
If the law of 1891, said Mr. Coleman
did not repeal the act of 1888, there sl.p
remained this question, rs the carrying on
OF Dookmaking the setting up or keeping a
gaming table or ether gambling deyice?"
The defendants, stated MIR. Coleman, denied
that IL was. Referring to a case tfecfdtN int
the fifty-third Maryland reports, eour of
appeals, MIR. Coleman explained that in that
case the question was, is poolselling and
bookmaking a game of chance or gambling
device? leading that case at great length
Mr.. Coleman referred to the fact that the
Maryland court had decided the question In
the negative. 1t was true that there were
dissenting opinions by the members of the
court in that case, Chief Justice Alvey now
the chief justice of the District Court of
Appeals, being one of the judges who dis
sented. He would. therefore, leave the Dis
trict attorney, to read the dissenting opln-
ion, and in that way get whatever consola-
ton he could out of it. ...-.-..
MIR. Birney-l viii be pleased to read it,
ana many other equally strong authorities
In support of my theory.
Does Not Apply.
Continuing, Mr.. Coleman contended that
the Maryland law prohibiting games of
chance and other gambling devices was
almost precisely similar TO that of the act
of Congress of 1885, and he dwelt at length
on the fact that the Maryland court of last
resort had, in the case quoted by him, ex-
pressly declared that the law did not pro-
hibit or interfere with pool-sellng or book
making. In that case, said Mr.. Coleman
the court had decided that where the life
liberty or property of person was at stake
the law alleged to apply should be so plain
ana explicit that not the slightest doubt of
its application should exist. Hence il a
doubt existed in the mind of the court as to
the application in the case on hearing of
the act of 1883, that doubt should, Mr. Cole
man claimed. be resolved to the benefit of
the indicted men, and the indic ctments charg-
ing them with violation of the ac, should
be quashed. Mr.. Coleman then proceeded
10 read at length Virginia and other au-
thOritieS sustaining his assertion, he stated
that booxmakng was not such a gams/0fl
chance or gambling device as to makY the
act of 1883 applicable.
The act of 1883, said Mr.. Coleman fiid not
specifically refer to bookmaking, and there
fore, he denied that 1t could be succeASfuny
contended that bookmaking was prohibited
by the act, or. indeed, that the act even inti-
mated prohibition of it. Thai the~aet did
not refer to bookmaking was fully apparent
said Mr.. Coleman, from it's last, section,
wherein it was provided that the act should
be construed literally No prevent the evils
1t sought to correct.
What do you say" asked Judge Cole,
"were the evils referred to by the act?''
why your honor" replied Mr. Coleman,
faro, keno and other games of chance; GER
tainly not betting ON horse racing. For If
Congress had intended such a construction
fl,.al laxxF tFrrla find half .