The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-17
MAUPIN ANTI.CAMBLING LAW.
The Case Of Lacey Us. Palmer, Sheriff.,
Begun IN The Supreme Court.
EDMUND BURKt'S LENGTHY ARGUMENT
He Contends That the Two MauPin biiis'
Approved by the Governor on the Sahe
Day, Repeal Each other, and Are
Contrary to Interstate Commerce LAW

Contrary to Interstate Commerce Law
The case OF alleged violation Oh the
Maupin anti-gamblIng law. known as
Lacey against Palmer, sheriff, which mas
been postponed from time TO time was
taken UP in the Supreme Court OF Ap-
peals. Lacey was arrested for entering
bet with book-maker in Alexandria
county TO be sent to a race-course near
Wheeling. w. Va, and there wagered
upon certain horse.
Lacey was committed TO Jail by the
justice OF the peace before whom he was
taken in Alexandria county TO await the
action Of the grand jury of that county.
His case comes before the Supreme Court
on a writ OF habeas corpus.
Lacey is represented by Messrs. Francis
| l.. Smith, Edmund Burke, Il. Walton
! Moore, and Samuel G.. Brent, Of Alexan-
dria, while Attorney-General r. Taylor
Scott appears for the Commonwealth.
AMENDMENT ALLOWED.
The case was called a little after II
o'clock, and Mr.. Burke asked permission
TO annul the petition originally nled LOT
writ of habeas corpus. In making TINS
request Mr.. Burke stated that the amend
ment he desired to offer was only pare
statement Of facts. Attorney-General
Scott raised no objection TO this, ana
the court decided to permit the petition
| to be annulled.
! The case was then regularly opened
| Attorney-General Scott reading the mltu-
| mus upon which Lacey had been COM
mittod TO jail and also the charge against
him-that in Alexandria county he ala
! offer a wager TO be placed on a certain
horse-racing outside Of the State OF VIZ
! ginia.
Lacey's demurrer TO the mittimus was
then read by Mr.. Burke, who especially
called the attention OF the court to the
fact that the wager which was to have
| been sent TO Wheeling, w. Va, was not
violation Of the laws Of that State.
In reply TO this the Attorney-General
said that the statement In regard to the
laws of West Virginia would have TO be
proven. and after consideration the court
decided that the case should be proceeded
with and the West Virginia law bearing
on the subject examined later.
Mr.. Burke, continuing. referred to the
law not long since enacted, which gives
to justices Of the peace exclusive juris-
diction in misdemeanor cases, and claim
ed that Laceys commitment by justice
was Illegal as he had no right to send
case of that kind TO a county court;
neither had tho County Court the right to
try It. Mr.. Burke said. however. that he
would waive this point. and the court
could pass upon the merits of the case.
A GRAVE QUESTION.
This declaration Of Mr.. Burke seemed
to somewhat stagger the court, which i'm
mediately adjourned TO the conference
room, where about ten minutes were con-
sumed in discussing the point. The judges
then returned to the bench, and Judge
Keith stated that the question OF juris-
diction was a grave one, and one which
should be carefully considered. Inc
court he said, was content TO take the
case and TO consider 1t exclusive OF the
point raised.
Both sides agreeing to this Mr.. Burke
began his argument by contending that
the body Of the Maupin law was devoid
OF any allusion to pool-selling, and fixed
no penaty for tho same; yet the title
was AN act to prohibit pool-se!ling.
It was, therefore, he contended, insufh-
cent, misleading, and consequently I'M
constitutional.
EFFECT OF THE LAW.
This point was dwelt upon at great
length by Mr.. Burke. He then spoke Of
the effect Of the law, which he declared to
be harsh legislation. which put such re-
strictlons upon a citizen as TO prohibit
him from sending his money out or the
State for any purpose.
While. said Mr.. Burke, IT was clearly
in the right OF the Legislature 10 enact
laws to prohibit gambling In the State, II
had no right 70 make laws which pre-
vented a citizen from sending his money
out Of the State for gambling purposes.
LAWS REPEAL EACH OTHER.
Mr.. Burke then compared the two Maui
pin laws-one prohibiting local and the
other foreign pool-selllng, and said that
the penalties prescribed by the two laws
. were dissimilar, although enacted for the
purpose Of Furnishing similar offences.
and he declared that by the peculiar
, phraseology Of the two laws one repealed
the other.
He called attention to the fact that
both Maupin laws were approved by the
Governor on the same day, and quoted
from opinions to show that. when two
laws repugnant to each other were en-
acted on the same day neither were
valid.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Mr. Burke said that he wanted an
/ opinion from the Supreme Court as 90 the
consiitutionaaity of all the race-track
legislation OF the late Legislature and
, also wished an Interpretation OF the in
terstate commerce law enacted by the
Congress Of the United States.
4 Mr.. Burke, after Speaking for an hour
and a quarter, concluded his argument
, shortly before CLOCK, and the court ad
! journed until this morning at II O'Clock
when Attorney-Gener Scott will begin
his argument The case viii probably
consume the whole day.
The points sought to be made by Mr..
3 Burke are that the bills introduced iy
Mr.. Maupin and approved by the Cover
] nor at one and the same time are al
z variance and annul each other and that
E they are further unconstitutional In being
contrary to the interstate commerce law
1 He claimed that citizen has the right "a
send money from this State to another foi
any purpose he desired.