Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-04-17
THE RACE TRACK CASE.


test the constitutionality of the Maupin
act prohibiting foreign book-making in
Virginia was begun in the Court OF APP
peals yesterday.
The style of the case is Lacey VS..
Palmer. the latter being the Sheriff OF
Alexandria county, to whose custody
the petitioner was consigned by the ex-
aiming magistrate. The prelirni-
naries and tie opening argument OF
Mr.. Burke, of counsel for Lacey, or,
really, the race-track people, consum-
ed the remainder of yesterdays session
of the court, after the opinions had
been handed down, and the further
hearing will consume the whole OF to-
day.
Messrs. Edmund Burke, Samuel G.
Brent. Francis L. Smith and r. Walton
Moore appeared rs counsel for the rae
ing people, and Attorney General
Scott represented the State. Mr.
Leonard Marbury, of Alexandria, was
to be associated with Major Scott, but
for some reason he was not present yes
terday.
1t was shortly after the noon hour
when Clerk Taylor called the case OF
Lacey VS.. Palmer, sheriff, and Mr..
Burke arose and, addressing the court,
asked permission to amend the petition
originally filed for writ of habeas
corpus. He explained that the amend
mept consisted only of bare and sue
cinct statement of facts, and the At
torney General raising no objections
thereto, the court permitted the petit
ton to be amended.
The case was then regularly gone
into, and Attorney General Scott read
the mitimus on which the prisoner,
Lacey, was committed to Jail, together
with the charge against him. namely,
that he did offer in Alexandria county
a wager to be placed on a certain
horse racing without the State OF Vir-
giDia.
Mr.. Burke then read Lacey's demur-
rer to the mitimus, and called atten-
ton to the clause in the petition setting
forth that the wager, which was to
have been transmitted to Wheeling, w.
Va. was not in violation of the laws OF
that State.
The Attorney General suggested that
the statement as to the laws OF West
Virginia was matter that should be
proven.
After some little discussion the court
ruled that the case might be proceeded
with, and the law of West Virginio
bearing on the case might be looked
into later.
Mr.. Burke referred to the recently
enacted law giving exclusive jurisdic,
ton in misdemeanor cases to justices OF
the peace, and said that the commit
ment of the Justice was illegal, in that
he did not have the right to send a case
of that description on to county court,
and the County Court had no right to
try it. MIR. Burke offered, however, to
waive this point and have the court
pass upon the merits of the case.
The point came like bombshell upon
all present, and the court at once al
iourned to the conference room to con
slider it. After ten minutes the judges
assembled the bench again, and Presi
dent Keith stated that the question Of
jurisdiction was very grave one, and
one that should be considered carefully.
The court was, however, content to
take the case as it is, and consider it,
exclusive of the point raised. This was
agreeable to both sides, and Mr.. Burke
began his argument. He first contend
ed that the body of the Maupin act was
entirely barren of any allusion to pool
selling, and fixed no penalty therefor,
and yet the title was simply to prevent
pool.selling, ETC., and was therefore in
sufficient and misleading, and con-
sequently unconstitutional. MIR. Burke
dwelt at considerable length on
this point, and subsequently dis
cussed the effect of the bill, set
ting forth that it was harsh legisla.
ton which so restricted citizen as to
prohibit him from sending his money
out of the State for any purpose what
ever. 1t was clearly in the province OF
the Legislature to enact laws prohibit
ing gambling in this State, but there
was no right vested in it to prohibit a
citizen from sending his money beyond
the borders of the Commonwealth for
gambling purposes, if ne so desired.
Comparing the two Maupin acts-the
one prohibiting local and the other for
eign pool.selling-Mr. Burke showed
that the penalties prescribed by the two
acts were dissimilar, though furnishing
similar offenses, and he contended in
directly that by the peculiar phrase.
ology of the two acts the one repealed
the other. Both of these acts, he said,
were approved by the Governor on the
same day, and he submitted opinions
deciding that when two acts, the one
repugnant to the other, are approved
on the same day, it is inn
possible for the courts to decide
which should have precedence, and
both shall fail. He therefore con-
tended in general terms that one Maui
pin act nullifed the other, and that, as
8 result, none of the anti.race-track
gambling laws enacted by the last Leg
islature we're valid.
Mr.. Burke, in concluding his argu-
ment, said he wanted an Interpretation
from the Supreme Court, not only Of
the constitutionality of the Maupin
law, but of the interstate commerce law
as enacted by the Congress of the
United States. He dwelt at some
length on the right of free and unre-
stricted commerce between the States,
and of the evils of police interference
Herewith.
Mr.. Burke concluded at few min
utes before 2 o'clock, and the court ad-