Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-18
ITS INTENT CLEAR.
NJ. Moore. In strong Arsument,
r..ssss rAat the Title Is rasufn-
cs~ns ana the Law imperative
Time Taken to Consider.

The Lacy habeAS corpus case ih'ei'"e
the constitutionaiity OF the Maupin anti
MISUNDERSTANDING act, was further ar
eued IN the Supreme Court OF Appeals
yesterday and submitted. The matter VIII
be given immediate consideration. ana "
Is not unlikely that the court viii an
nounce its decision on Monday. mo
ton 10 admit Lacy TO bail pending the
hearing In this court was denied
Only two speeches were made yester-
day--that Of Attorney General scout III
defence Of the Maupin act. ana mat OK
ex-senator II. Walton Moore. closing 'he
argument in behalf of Lacy.
Major Scott. before replying Directly 70
the argument made by Mr.. Burke on
Thursday, went into o discussion OK tne
question OF jurisdiction raised Dy 'nat
gentleman. He contended that the gu
prane Court of Appeals had as much
power. authority. and jurisdiction over
Lacy Al IL would have had IL the LEXIS
iature had never extended the Jurisoictoh
OF police justices.
Major Scott then discussed the Maupin
law, which he said. declared In trumpet
Ike tones TO the world that virginia
would not tolerate gambling or any specie
thereof. Pool-selling was cognate term
to gambling, and the title TO the act
which was attacked by Mr.. Burke. was
absolutely clear and full OF meaning, set
ting forth In brief terms what the act
prohibited. The title did not oneho
against the Constitution, and there were
no grounds for Mr. Burke's contention
that II vitiated the act.
The Attorney General made a strong
argument for the prosecution. and was
interrupted by Judge Keith, who suggest
ed that the title OF the act. TO prevent
pool-selling. etc, upon the results OF
any trials Of speed of animals or beasts
taking place without the limits or the
Commonwealth might not cover an
II It were construed literally. might ope-
rate only to prevent pool-selling, Wnlle
other forms OF gambling were permitteu.
Major Scott said he thought the law
was q good one; that the species was
70 be found in the title. and the genus
Va the body of the act, and the DrohiD.-
hon was clearly set forth. In answering
AFR. Burkes contention that the TWO
Maupin laws were rcpugnant 70 each
other, and the one repealed the other py
Implication, Major Scott said that the
acts, while similar in effect, were dlssimi-
lar In operation, as while one pronloi ,sa
the making of books on local races, me
other operated TO prohibit the making OF
books on foreign races.
QUESTION OF TRANSMISSION.
Judge Keith asked II the charge against
Lacy wss Of ,,a Po OLE sbarSe w Sno
the same entered in the Lescailes case,
and did not refer TO pool-selling, put
rather. ayerred that the prisoner purport-
/. ed and pretended TO forward money 10
Ths poiilt raised by Mr.. Burke that the
foreign pool-selling-act coniiicted with the
snferstate-commerce law was answered by
Major Scott who contended and cited au-
thorities TO bear him out. that the law
state-iaw violators. This point the Attor-
ney-General argued at some length, and
said IL was incumbent upon the supreme
Court TO uphold the law as a consutu.
be enforced by the officers OF the COM
monwealth.
THE TITLE INSUFFICIENT.
The Attorney General concluded with
this. and was followed by Hon. r. Wal
ton Moore, who made brilliant. argu-
as TO the insufficiency of the title OF the
act, and urged that IL was a constitutions
mandate that the title of every act should
clearly state its purpose. he SAID tia,
ia almost every case similar to this enc
which had come up for adjudication, the
courts had held that only that portion
OF the act which was referred TO by the
constitutional in so far as II prevented
pooi-selling. The next point taken Ut
by MIR. Moore was that made by the At
tcrney General, that the words "and sc
forth" covered all objects In the law rot
expressed In the title. and he read from
authorities to show that these words coulC
not properly have any force or effect
He said the prisoner Lacy 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 bs goot
grounds for convicting the express com
pany and railroad company which con
veyed the money to West Virginia al
there were for convicting Lacy, and I'M
Western Union Telegraph Company ant
its operator were equally as liable. An
other objection urged against the act b,
Mr.. Moore was that no place of imprison
ment was specified therein, and II wa
not shown whether a violation Of 1t Wa
a misdemeanor or felony.
In conclusion, Mr.. Moore called atten
ton 10 the fact that the prisoner was II
Jail, and he asked that while the cas-
was pending in the Supreme Court b.
be released on ball.
The court trted that the matter woull
ne taken under consideration. and ad
jonrned for the day. After about 81
hour, Judge Rely returned TO the court
room. and notified the counsel that III
court had refused to grant ball to Lacy