Evening star., 1894-01-04

FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR.
pose Congress had overlooked the matter?'
Mr.. Coleman replied by saying that the
court could not suppose anything; that the
law must be taken as il stood.
Intention of Congress.
Replying to Mr.. Birney Mr.. Coleman said
that it was undoubtedly true that the
courts could, in constituting a statute. con-
slider the intention of Congress in the mat
ter. In fact, said Mr. Coleman, the United
States Supreme Court had. time and time
again. so decided, saying that it was the
duty of the courts to do so where any doubt
existed as to the true intent of the legisla-
tive body. Referring to the Benning race
meetings, MIR. Coleman stated that it could
hardly be contended that it was the negli-
gence of the district attorney which per-
mitted those meetings to run unmolested,
and intimated that they had been run with
out interference because the district attor-
ney had never before imagined that the act
of 1883 prohibited them.
suppose inquired Judge Cole. that the
act of 1883 expressly made bookmaking an
offense. would the act of 1891 have repealed
it?"
Certainly, your honor" replied Mr.. Cole
man, but if your honor should find that
the act of 1881 did prohibit it, then Con-
gress, in passing the act of 1891 affrma-
lively repealed the former act in that part
of the District lying outside of the one
mile limit
Mr. Coleman Concluded his argument at
1880, and the court then took a recess for
half an hour.
Mr.. Birney Begins.
After recess, in the presence of an even
more crowded court room, MIR. Birney he
gan his argument on behalf of the govern
ment. Before proceeding with his legal ar
gument the district attorney explained that
it had been charged that he had failed TO
agree to test case. He had only to say
that he did not conceive 1t to be his duty
at the request of others to make the court
nothing more than moot court. He mad
done what he had conceived to be his duty,
and he had no apologies to offer and 10 re-
grets to express that he had done all he
could to throttle an iniquity sought to be
fosted on this community. 1t was not the
first case brought under the statute, as had
been claimed by Mr.. Coleman; one Jones
had been indicted under the act of 1888,
but Mr.. Worthington, district attorney then,
went out of office before the case was tried.
and his successor had dismissed the case.
1t had been claimed by Mr.. Coleman that
his clients were laval abiding citizens, with
no purpose or intention to violate the Jaw
here or elsewhere. but it was a fact, never
theless, that the men of the Ivy City man
agement had been indicted and convicted
in New Jersey for doing that which they
had sought to do here.
THE district attorney" interrupted Mr..
Coleman, lis mistaken"
"Well. them replied Mr.. Birney. "if you
will look up the New Jersey reports you
will find that Geo. II. Engeman, his broth
and Chas. V. Sass, the latter the secre-
tary of the Ivy City club, were indicted
and convicted in that state as l have said.
And driven out of that state such law
lny1na hpyr m
here to do the same unlawful and wicked
things"
Calls BOOI<makinE Gambling.
Proceeding with his argument Mr.. Birney
referred to the evils which spring from
winter racing, and read authorities to show
that betting on horse races was gambling
rure and simple. The title of the act of
1888 was IAN act to prevent gaming"
&C Because bookmaking was betting on
horses running or trotting race 1t was
contended by the defense that it was not
gaming or the keeping or setting up or
a gaming table or other gambling device.
The Maryland DecisiOn.
d Much reliance, said Mr.. Birney, had been
placed by MIR. Coleman on the action of the
court of appeals of Maryland, in which
it had been claimed that the court had de-
cded that pool selling and bookmaking did
not violate the state law prohibiting gam
ing or the setting up of a gaming table or
other gambling device. 1t vas remark
able fact said Nj. Birney, that the judges
>Sited no authorities in support of its de-
c)son. Another remarkable fact, he said.
III connection with the Maryland courts
decision was that there We're three sepa-
rate opinions handed down by the six
judges hearing the case. Four judges con-
Cured in the majority decision, though two
of the four could rot agree with the reason
ing of the other two. Two judges dissented
Chief Justice Alvey. now of the District
Court of Appeals, and Judge Miller. From
Chief Justice Alvey's dissenting opinion
Mr.. Birney read at great length claiming
that as it was supported by numerous inn
portant decisions, it was really entitled to
much more weight than was the majority
decision of the court.
HOOLmakinE a Game.
1t had been contended that it was ridicu-
lous to hold horse racing a game but, said
Mr. Birney, he had very high legal author
ity for terming 1t, and he read from an
opinion of Chief Justice Cooley of the Michi-
gan supreme court, in which Judge Cooley,
in delivering the unanimous opinion of the
court declared the term to be a correct one,
and the court affirmed the conviction of the
proprietor of pool room under the law pro-
hibiting the running of gaming rooms The
Michigan courts decision was one of the
authorities, explained Mr.. Birney, quoted
by Chief Justice Alvey. The opinion of
Judge Cooley, in turn, stated Mr.. Birney,
quoted many decisions in support of the
conclusion reached by the court.
Putting aside the Michigan decision
which he read at length, Mr.. Birney read
numerous other American and several
English decisions as sustaining the posi-
ton of the prosecution that a horse race
was a game and that betting on 1t where
run on the spot or elsewhere was a game
of chance and that the setting up of the
paraphernalia of the bookmaker or pool
seller was setting up of a gambling device
Continuing his citation of authorities in
support of his contention that bookkeeping
and pool selling was gaming, Mr.. Birney
stated that even In Kentucky, the home of
racing and race horses, it had been held
that house where such gambling was
permitted was a disorderly house.
But you don't accuse u.s. said MIR. Will
son. ''of keeping a disOrderly house."
We'll" replied Mr.. Birney, Il come pret-
ty near IT In the second count of the in
dictment."