Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-08
BOTH LAWS HOLD
Bookmaking in the District Pro-
hibited by Two Acts.
JUDGE MILLER'S RULING TO-DAY
He Holds Bookmaker Miller for tho
Grand Jury.
d EFEN Sc CONTENTION

In the Police Court this afternoon Judge
Miller decided that the laws of the District
| prohibited bookmaking in every part of the
| District, and held Fred. T. Miller the
young horseman, who conducted bookmak-
ing at the Benning race track last Satur-
| day in a scrub race there, to await the
action of the grand jury in the sum of
| $50.
The case was set for a hearing at IL
o'clock this morning. but 1t was afternoon
| before ii was taken up. Mr. Henry z.
Davis represented Miller, Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Mullowny representing Dis
trict Attorney Birney. A large crowd was
| attracted by the case, composed mostly Of
horsemen and others interested in racing.
among whom was President Ross of the
Washington Jockey Club, the owners of
the Benning track.
The decision OF Judge Miller, although
The Star several days ago intimated what
1t would probably be, was a severe disap-
pointment to the racegoers, who had
hoped that Judge Miller would dismiss The
case.
Judge Miller stated that he had care
fully considered the opinion of Judge Cole
OF the Criminal Court rendered in the
case of the Ivy City bookmakers last win
ter, and IT appeared that Judge Cole had
held that the statutes of 1888, prohibiting
gambling and the setting up and MAIN
tanning OF gambling tables other de-
vices or contrivances, and that of 1891,
pr ohibting bookmaking in the cities of
Washington and Georgetown, and within
one mile thereof stood together, both ap-
plying.
While he could not fully concur in that
opinion in its entirety, explained Judge
Miller, he had no difficulty in holding that
the act of 1891 applied so as to prohibit
bookmaking In the cities of Washington
and GeorGetown. and within one mile
thereof, and that the act Of 1883, as con-
| strued by Judge Cole prohibited bookmak-
ing outside those limits. He was, said
Judge Miller. remitted to the face of the
two Statutes and while Congress un-
Of 1883 i'm the application to those sec
tions of the District outside the above
described limits, II had failed to do by
the act of 1891. The former act un-
Questionably much wider in its scope than
the latter one, and also directed the courts
to construe 1T literally, so as to include
and prohibit all modes of gambling. Hence,
bookmaker's slate and other parapher-
MALTA came under the designation OF gam
ing table, device or other contrivance."
His Opinion.
In his humble opinion, said Judge Miller,
irrespective of Judge Coles decision, the
act of 1888 was repealed to a certain ex-
tent by the ect Of 1891 1t might have
been a cold-blooded act of Congress to
legalize a thing in one section Of the Dis
trict and make II an unlawful offense in
other sections but Congress had, ii SEEM
ed to him, done that very thing. He could
not agree with the contention of the gov
ernment that it could prosecute under
either statute He was, therefore, forced
to the conclusion that the act of 1888 was
repealed pro tanto by that of 1901, and that
any prosecution for conducting bookmak-
ing in the cities of Washington and George
town and within one mile thereof must be
brought under the act of 1891, and for the
thing those
act of 1883. Congress, said Judge Miller,
undoubtedly knew what ii was doing in
passing the law of 1891. and unquestionably
intended, as claimed by Mr.. Davis. that
booEmaking should be permitted outside of
the named limits but II did not repeal the
act of 1888 to that extent In that way,
explained Judge Miller, Ii was clearly evil
dent that both acts could and did stand
together.
MIR. Davis Contentious.
Mr.. Davis explained that his contention
was that the act Of 1871 was a substitute.
as to bookmaking, for the one of 1888.
Otherwise, the absurd result was that
bookmaklng in the cities of Washington
and Georgetown and within one mile there
of was an offense punishable by a fine not
exceeding 500, or Imprisonment not ex-
ceeding ninety days in Jail, and outside of
those limits was punishable by imprison-
ment not exceeding five years in the peni-
tentiary.
Juuse the courts
were not responsible for absurd results.
Mr.. Davis readily assented to that, but
explained that II was well-known fact
that Congress never intended to prohibit
bcokmakng on the District race tracks.
1t was an equally well-known fact, said
Mr.. Davis that the act of 1891 was aimed
at, and specifically intended to prohibit, the
pool rooms, which, driven out of the city
by the act of 1883. fourished just across
Boundary street, or Florida avenue
The debates in Congress at the time said
Mr.. Davis, clearly showed that, and as
clearly showed that the law was not aim
ed at, or intended to prevent honest rae
ing.
Judge Miller remarked that he would
not deny that, but said that he could do
nothing but hold Miller for the action of
the grand jury. Mr.. Miller thereupon gave
a bond of $500, his father being the surety.
District Attorney Birney, when informed
by a Star reporter of Judge Miller's iispo-
sition of the case. expressed his gratifca-
ton, and stated that the case would be laid
before the grand jury at the earliest prac-
ticable day, and that an indictment might
he expected in a reasonably short time