The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-18
LACEY NOT ALLOWED BAIL.
The Supreme Court Decides That II Has
No Authority So TO Do.
ARGUMENT IN THE CASE CONCLUDED.
Attorney General Scott Makes u" ""'e
Speech Full of strong Points, declaring
the Maupin Law Constituii"n"i-"r
Il. Walton aIoore's Vigorous hep'y'

morning. Acknowledgement 'Dptt -" "a
Tor the Commonwealth IN an @"'s sPeeSn
OF more than an hour IN Which no '''''
many strong points. ~,
For the .iefence Mr. r. walton Moore
addressed the Court for about an aotr'
concluding Iy a motion that bail be Al
lowed Lacey. The court took the moOon
under consideration. but finally decided
that Il had 10 authority 10 paI t"e
prisoner. ,,-, ,..
The speech OF Mr.. Moore, which was
Az able one from his point Oh 'ie"' ""S
devoted mainly 10 an attempt 10 ptONo
that the Maupin law was uncohS ulutlohH''
since al the objects cOntalhcd III me Dou'
of me law are not set forth ia the TIE.
lie also cited number Oh au,noi ~ ~
prove that the Aiaupin law was III con
fict with the commerce clause 81 the
Constitution IL the United STATES hho'
therefore, unconstitutional .,...
General Sso.t's argument was counter
to that Of Mr.. Moore along the saiho
lines. and he made some cohNinci"s
points. lii,
General Scott said that before begin
ning his reply TO the eNtenoeu al su''i'"
OF Mr.. Burke. or taking cognizance OF
the briefs submitted by Lacey atto,neys'
which he had not as YET hau ci'S S -
10 thoroughly examine he PsoP'se ,'t,t,.,'
DISCUSS the fIAtr NipAi VA 1f+-'
had been brought up.
HAS JURISDICTION
After discussing this point at some
length the AttOrney-Genefal declaIeu
that the Supreme Court has now ths
same power. authority, ana 5efise'ce''A
over Richard NJ. Lacey that IT had before
The LEGISLATURE Of Virginia amended the
statute I'm regard 10 tho jurisdiction oi
MAGISTRATES and justices OF the peace
Tho Acknowledgement then went on 10
discuss tho Maupin antl-gamDlinB Jaw
declaring that II told the people OF Fir-
ginla, in tones trumpet-like and clear,
that no species Of gambling OUTSIDE OF
Virginia should be engaged IN by the
citizens of this State. PoOlseiling' ne ue-
clarod, was Included in the general term
gambling" The title Of tie Marrr iaw
he said. was % prevent pO0l-selllng. etc,
! and Il he was correct IL the CONCLUSIONS
he drew. ii meant nothing more nor less
| than TO prohibit gambling by citizens OF
! Virginia outside Of the State. General
| Scott went on TO cite number of eases
10 show that the title 10 this law dia not
| conflict with inc Constitution, ana 1t was
| therefore, a valid law.
I AS 10 the body Of the law, that. he
| claimed. was even more distinct and clear
! than the title. Reading over tie Law, the
| Attorney-General declared that 1t was
cutting up the vice o. gambling root ana
| branch.
TAKE the title Of this act--take tho
| body 81 this act" said he, "and this man
| lacey IS condemned. lie was fore
warned Of the consequences Of his act
IS THE TITLE ADEQUATE?
Judge Keith here interrupted the argu-
mont Of the Attorney-General, by re-
| g.r4fr
| gnind was whether the title OF the Maupin
law. which is ITO prevent pool-selling,
etc." was adequate to cover and desis-
! nate other forms OF gambling.
| I'm answer 10 mis- the AttOrney-Genera
! cOntonded that the word etc when
! had been declared uramportant was the
/ word which covered all the forms Of
I gambling forbidden. "The species" he
said. "is IN tho title. and the genus in the
/ body. and. 10 my mind, we have the most
| complete Information possible regarding
| the offence sought % be suppressed.
In regard TO the point made by Mr.
Burke that the two Maupin laws approved
[ hv the Governor ON the same day We're
al variance and annulled each other
! General Scott contondcd that this could
! not be- the case unless by direct implica-
| lion. There was DE- said, no antagouism
between tho two laws.
OFFENCE NOT POOL-sELLING.
Judge Keith again interrupted General
Scott and said De- was under the impress
sion that tho offence charged In this
case was not pool-selling. General Scott
| Yeplied that be was under the Impression
that the offence was similar 10 that COM
mittcd I'm the celebrated Lescallet case.
one Of the prisoners attorneys stated
| here that the offence was not pool-seN-
ing. and that the case was precisely SINH
lar 20 tho Lesrallct case.
1T IS possible" said General Scott,
"that mis- gentleman upon MS triai may
prove that he has not violated this law.
But that has nothing 10 DO with the con-
stitutionaiity OF the law"
! General Scott next took mp the question
raised by Mr.. Burke that the Maupin
anu-gambling law interlored with inter
state commerce. He contended that the
| United States Interstate commerce law
was never INTENDED 10 defend violators OF
Interstate lazy. lie read from authorities
20 prove that the interstate commerc.
law was not enacted TO prevent individual
States from onacting laws for the preser
walton, welfare. good morals and protec-
ton Of Individual cltlzons Of the States.
lie made the point that II under the
United States commerce law any con-
tract was entered into which was fntu-
rious 20 the health or morals Of individ-
uals, that contract was Illegal. He de-
clared that there WIS nothing In the Maui
pln law which interafered with legitimate
commerce between the States. He fur
Their contended that the ant-gambling
law was leyelled at individuals. and,
therefore. was not in conflict with the
commerce clause Of the Constitution OF
the Unlfcd states because persons were
not articles Of commerce.
General Scott said ne ala not propose
10 go into n dissertation on gambling
that the question was as TO the con-
stitutonanty OF the law. II have ad-
dressed myself entirely 10 that point" h,
said. before the highest court OF the
State. 70 which now submit the case OF
Richmond II. Lacey against Palmer,
sheriff"
Mr. MOORE'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. r. Walton Moore. for the defence
followed General Scott. In the start h,
addressed himself 20 the question whether
the objects expressed in the body Of
the act were named In the title. If,
had found no case. he said, where al
act had been held constitutional wher'
the title expressed only a lew or the
objects named In the body Of the act.
Il submit. in the first place said Mr.
Moore that the act IS wholly unconsti
tutional; or IL / am wrong In that, tina
Il Is constitutional only so TAR as Il
refers TO pool-sellng.'
Mr.. Moore then took up the
point made by General Scott that
the words "&e." In the uue