The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-05
ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS
ANTI-LOTTERY LAW VIOLATIONS SET
FREE BY THE SUPREME COURT
Important Decision by JUS
ticc on Behalf of His As
sOciates-Other Opinions.


WASHINGTON, Jan. 1.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day rendered a de-
cision. through Justice Peckham, in the
case of Albert l.. France and others. in
volving the anti-lottery law of 1895. France
and his fellow-appellants were convicted in
the district of Ohio on the charge OF con-
spring TO violate this act. and the verdict
of that court was reversed by the opinion
rendered by this court. The opinion was
handed down by Justice Peckham. 1t did
not construe the constltutionality of the
lottery law at all. but was based on the
technical ground that the act for which
France and his associates We're convicted
was subsequent to the drawing of the lot
terry instead of precedent to it. as provided
in the statute. 1t appears that the defend
ants were arrested with slips of paper
showing the result of the drawing, known
in the lottery world as hit Slips on their
persons while on the way from Covington,
KY, where the lottery drawing took place,
to Cincinnati. where the sale offices were
located. In rendering the opinion Justice
Packham said: The lottery had already
been drawn: the papers CARRIED by the
messenger were not those dependent on the
event of any lottery. The language as used
In the statute books looks to the future. If
the lottery had been drawn. the interest is
n mo Ion TsIc6 deP psn bs On II tho T Theron condition lion
dependent had happened; the solution of
the problem has already been arrived at:
the bet has already been determined. Con-
tinuing. he says: 1.-THE statute does not
cover the transaction and. however. repre-
henslble the acts of the plaintiff in error
may be thought to be. we cannot Sustain a
conviction on that lrnund ALTHOUGH tlo
objection is a narrow one. yet the statute
being highly penal. we are compelled to
construe 1t strictly Hence the judgment
or the court below was reversed and the
cause remanded. with instructions 10 set
aside the Judgment and discharge the pris-
oners. Justice Harlan dissented.
Justice White rendered a decision in the
case of the United Sra6es and the Sioux. In
dams vs.. the Northwestern Express Com
pany. holding that the term Citizen, in
Indian depreciation cases, applies to corpo-
ratiOns.
The State law of the State of Missouri.
holding railroad companies responsible for
damage by fire caused by railroad locomo-
tives. was sustained in two decisions by
Justice Gray. appealed to this court by the.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. Justice
Gray said that the act was d due exercise
OF legislative authority.
In the case of John f. Bushnell VS.. CYRUS
A. Leland. receiver of the State National
Bank of Wichita, Kan. the court reaf-
firmed. in a decision by Justice White. the
right of a national bank receiver appointed
by the controller of uhe currency TO enforce
the individual liability OF the banks stock
dolders; The case was appealed from the
decision of the Connecticut district court.
which was favorable to the receiver. and
to-day's opinion affirmed this view.
An oniniop rapdarad H., I,.,;oo D..
in the case of William G. Ford, jr., and
Lewis p. Levey VS.. The Delta Pine Land
Company decided the. ownership of 200 diff
ferent tracts of land. including 112, 100 acres
in nine different COUNTIES of the State of
Mississippi. The lands were acquired by
the Pine Land Company on tax sales for
levee improvements. which the former
owners resisted on the ground that the
lands. which had been formerly granted to
the Memphis, Holly Spring & Mobile Rail-
road Company: were, exempt: The case
was appealed from the Circuit Court for
the southern district of Mississippi by
Ford * Levey, the decision there having
oeen averse to them. This verdict was to-
The court reversed several decisions of
the late Judge Parker, of the Western dis
trict of Arkansas. Among these was the
case of Henry Starr, who appealed from
a sentence of death for murder i'm the In
dian Territory. which was STAIRS second
conviction. The appeal in this case was
based on the. technical ground that a war
rant was admitted as testimony in the
absence of the official seal. Justice X hite
a third trial.
Another case of considerable interest
from the Indian Territory. decided in favor
of the appellants. was that of Jess and
John Nofire. under sentence for the murder
of Fred Rutherford. Rutherford was a
white man who had married a Cherokee
squaw, and the question involved in his
case was whether the act Of marriage had
been in proper form, which would make
him n Cherokee citizen. and i'm this case
the Federal Court would have no jurisdic-
ton over his murderers. 1t appeared. how
ever. that the marriage had been conduct
ed without a fun observance OF the Chero-
kee laws. Assistant Attorney General
whitney. in his in the case.
showed that Rutherford had been especial
~ remiss i'm failing to comply with the
Cherokee law in his marriage. and an opin-
ion from the attorney general of the Chero-
KEGS was filed in the case TO the effect that
Il man who did not comply with these laws
or the Indians was not II citizen of the
tribe. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion
of the court. holding that Rutherford was
a Cherokee citizen. and. therefore. reVers-
ms the decision of Judge Parker. holding
the Notlres guilty OF murder under the
laws of the United States. 1t is believed
that the effect of this opinion will be to
admit many "squaw men to citizenship in
the llliidn tiiDtS anu III cast VI n III SIT
of Indian property. as is proposed i'm Indian
Territory by the Dawes commission. will
have an important bearing upon the dis
tribution.
The Supreme Court granted Elverton r.
Chapman. the New York broker. convicted
for refusing TO answer questions put TO
him by the Senate sugar trust investigat-
ing committee. leave 10 make an applica-
tion for "A writ OF habeas corpus. The court
will hear argument on March %. The case
is a test one. Chapman surrendered him
was permitted TO go to the Supreme Court
to make the application. a deputy marshal
| accompanying HIM. The hearing of the
argument was postponed so long in order
10 permit Senator Edmunds to spend the
winter in the South. He asked the court
to set the day at "A time when the Inaugural
ton and the March winds would both be
well out of the way.