Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-04-18
THE RACE TRACK CASE.

was further argued 10 the Court of APP
peals yesterday and submitted. The
matter will be given immediate consid-
Grafton, and it is not unlikely that the
court will announce its decision on
Monday. A motion to admit Lacey to
bail pending the hearing in this court
was denied.
Only two speeches were made yes
terday-that of Attorney General
Scott, in defense af the Maupin act,
and that of ex-senator r. Walton
Moore, closing the argument in behalf
of Lacey,
Msjor Scott, before replying directly
to the argument made by Mr.. Burke
on Thursday, went into discussion of
the question of jurisdiction raised
by that gentleman. He contended
that the Court of Appeals had as much
power, authority, and jurisdiction over
Lacey as it would have had if the Leg
islature had never extended the juris-
diction of police justices.
Major Scott then discussed the
Maupin law, which, he said, declared in
trumpet-like tones to the world that
Virginia would not tolerate gambling
or any species thereof. Pool-selling was
a cognate term to gambling and the tit Q
to the act, which was attacked by Mr..
Burke, was absolutely clear and full Of
meaning, setting forth in brief terms
what the act prohibited. The title did
not offend against the reconstruction, and
there were no grounds for Mr.. Burke's
contention that it vitiated the act.
The Attorney General made strong
argument for the prosecution, and was
interrupted by Justice Keith, who
suggested that the title of the act, "To
prevent pool-selling, ETC., upon the re
suits of any trials ofspeed of animals +
beasts taking place without the limits OF
the commonwealth" might not cover
all forms of gambling on horse-racine,
and, if it were construed literally,
might operate only TO prevent pool
selling, while other forms of gambling
were permitted.
Major Scott said he thought the law
was good one, that the species was
to be found in the title, and the genus
iu the body of the act. and the prohibi
tirn was clearly set forth. In answering
Mr.. Burke's contention that the two
Maupin laws were repugpant to each
other, and the one repealed the other
by implication. Major Scott said that
the acts, while similar in effect, were
dissimilar in operation, as while one
prohibited the making of books on
local races, the other operated to pro-
hibit the making of books on foreign
races.
Judge Keith asked if the charge
against Lacey was that of pool-selling,
and brought out the fact that the
charge was the same entered in the
Lescalles case, and did not refer to
pool-selling, but, rather, averred that
the prisoner pnrported and pretended
to forward money to be bet. etc.
The point raised by Mr.. Burke
that the foreign pool-selling act conflict
ed with the interstate commerce law
was answered by Major Scott, who
commended, and cited authorities to
bear him out, that the law did
not intend to cover or assist inter
State law violators. This point the At
torney- General argued at some length,
and said it was incumbent upon the
Supreme Court to uphold the law as
constitutional enactment, valid law,
which must be enforced by the officers
of the commonwealth.
The Attorney-G General concluded
with this, and was followed by Hon. X
Walton Moore, who made brilliant ar
gument. He first took up the conten-
ton as to the insufliciency of the title Of
the act, and urged that it was consti-
tutional mandate that the title of every
act should clearly state its purpose. He
said that in almost every case similar
to this one which had come up for adj
Indication, the court had held that only
that portion of the act which was re
ferred to by the title was operative.
The act was only constitutional in so
far as it prevented pool selling. The
next point taken up by Mr.. Moore was
that made by the Attorney General,
that the words 'and so FORTH covered
all objects in the law not expressed in
the title, and he read from authorities
to show that these words could not
properly have any force or effect.
He said the prisoner Lacey was clearly
entitled to his release, as the law only
prohibited pool-selling, and the charge
against him was betting and deception.
Mr.. Moore said there were just as good
grounds for convicting the express com.
pany and railroad company which con-
veyed the money to West Virginia as
there were for convicting Lacey, and
the Western Union Telegraph Company
and its operator were equally as liable.
Another objection urged against the
act by Mr.. Moore was that no place of
imprisonment was specified therein,
and it was not shown whether viola
ton of it was misdemeanor or felony.
In conclusion Mr.. Moore called at
tention to the fact that the prisoner
was in Jail, and he asked that while the
case was pending in the Supreme Court
he be released on bail.
The court stated that the matter
would be taken under consideration,
and adjourned for the day. After about
an hour Judge Rely returned to the
courtroom and notified the counsel that
the court had refused to grant bail to
Lacey.
SUNDAY PAPERS &c.-At the session
of the East Hanover Preshytery, in
Petersburg yesterday, Rev. S. z. VIM
presented the report of the committee
on Sabbath obaervenpe The rennrt