Evening journal., 1897-12-13
THE TRADING STAMP WAR.
LAWYER H. H. WARD GIVES HIS
OPINION CT THE MATTER.

LAWYER n. H. WARD GIVES HIS
OPINION CT THE MATTER.
HE FINDS NOTHING IN THE LAWS
on THIS srATE PROHIBITING
THE USE or THE STAMPS AND
THINKS THDM PERFECTu.Y LIE
GAIL
The latest business enterprise to
create a stir In the community is that |
of the trading stamp.
Two concerns are now doing busi- |
ness in Wilmington, and their plan is |
to make an arrangement with promi- |
nent merchants, by which a purchaser |
of merchandise in any Of the stores Is
lsupplied with coupon for the amount
of his purchase.
These coupons are put in book
which the stamp company provides,
and when that book Is full, the stamp
company will exchange 1t for any ar
ticle of bric-a-bracc IN its store. Some
Of the latter are very valuable.
u. S. COURT DENOUNCES 1T.
A despatch from Washington, how
ever, created CONSERVATION among
| kaIilt vi lllt tdilOMns III od1os
BY tho decision OF the Court of APP
peals the trading stamp business IS de-
clared Illegal and the judgment Of the
police court I'm finding Joseph
A. Sperry, manager of the Washington
} Trading Stamp Company and
Gustav Lansburgh, of the firm of
Lansburgh g. Bro, guilty Of violation
, of the statute relating to gift enter
prises is sustained. IL will be romem-
bored that Mr., Sperry and Mr.. Lans-
burgh were arraigned in police court
for participating in the trading stamp
business for the purpose of testing the
legality of the enterprise. They made
no denial. formal verdict of guilty
was rendered, and fines OF Sl00 each
/, were imposed An appeal was promptly
taken to the highest court Of the Dis
4 trict for q final judicial determination.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals
{. was delivered by Justice Shepard, but
u Il Is the unanimous opinion OF the
r court. The decision IS final AS to
5 the contention that the act of Congress
Is so general in its scope as 20 compre-
+ hend and undertake to punish as Of
l. lenses acts that are matters of private
right beyond the power of Congress TO
prohibit or interfere with, and that the
forbidden operation. Is inseparable
y from the permissible operations, and
q that the whole act is therefore void
= the court said:
= 1T is the duy of the courts to take a
d liberal view of the situation presented
to the Legislature in such cases, and TO
give it's acts providing therefor a sem
- sible construction, such as will effectu-
= ate the legislative intention, so as 70
u avoid an unjust or absurd conclusion.
l. RELYING ON A LOTTERY.
l. 1t further says: Without the ne
q cessity Of declaring that the acts prov
III ed in this case constitute the conduct
of q lottery gift enterprise, as those
e words are commonly understood, on
y even OF finding that the element OF
4. chance operates Intentionally and dis
IL tinctly in the scheme of the trading
10 stamp company, we think, neverthe-
= less, that they come within the prohi.
II bition Of the statute, which furnishes
its own definition of gift enterprise.
D. The court adds: The premium
NJ of the trading stamp company
rs must be grossly oYeryalued, OIL
the company must rely upon th'
a failure Of the presentation Of many oi
II the stamps which is relying upon q
r. lottery. The prohibition Of such q
scheme is clearly within the power OF
n- Congress within this district.
D. THE COMPANY ARRAIGNED
n With reference to the Trading stamI
~ Company the court says: 1.-The Wash
~ ington Trading Stamp Company anC
70 it's agents are not merchants engaged
in business as that term is commonly
70 | understood They are not dealers in
- ordinary merchandise, engaged in a le
gitimate attempt to obtain purchaser.
? for their goods by Offering fair ant
u lawful inducements to trade. Theil
business is the exploitation Of moth
ing more or less than a cunning de
!, vice.
y with no stock in trade, but that de
!, vice and necessary books and stamps
- q and so-called premiums with whicl
- to operate it successfully, they have in
tervened in the legitimate business
~ carried on In the District Of Columbia
between seller and buyer, not for thl
lu advantage of either. but to prey OF
both. They sell nothing to the persoI
- to whom they furnish the premiums
They pretend simply to act for hi
'h benefit and advantage by forcing thei
I stamps upon perhaps unwilling mer
a chant, who pays them in cash at tn
- rate OF So a thousand. There is not
~ shadow of rational foundation for tn
=, stamp company's claim that it confer
- a benefit upon buyers by procuring TO
them an actual discount"
In comparing the scheme of tn
~ stamp company with the of merchant
no who give away articles with their pur
chases, the court says in the case o
u the latter they have on exhibition il
their stores the articles which they of
u err as an inducement to purchasers
"a while with the stamp company tn
G.
Is zEMA.LThese distressing skin dis