The Portland daily press., 1897-12-10
TRADING STAMP COMPANIES.
They Are Barred Out of the District 81
Columbia.
Court of Appeals Pronounces them in VIC
Iatiou of a law of Conpress

Court of Appeals Pronouncss them in VIC
1ation of Law of Congress.
Washington, Dec. 9, 1S97-Ry the de-
cision of the Court of Appeals, handed
down yesterday. the trading stamp bust
ness is declared illegal, and the Judgment
of the Police Court, in finding Mr.. Joseph
A. Sperry, manager of the Washington
Trading Stamp Company, and Mr.. Gus
taye Lansburgh, of the firm of Lansburgh
81 Bro, guilty of violation of the
statute relating to gift enterprises is sus-
tanned. 1t will be remembered that Mr..
Sperry and Mr.. Lansburgh were arraigned
in Police Court for participating in the
trading stamp business for the purpose
of testing the legality of the enterprise.
Ihey made no denial. A formal verdict
OF guilty was rendered, and fines of 500
each were imposed. An appeal was
promptly taken to the highest court of
the District for final judicial determi-
nation.
| The opinion of the Court OF Appeals
was delivered by Justice Shepard. but it
IS the unanimous opinion of the court
The decision is final. AS to the conten-
tion that the act of Congress is so general
IN Its. soope as TO comprehend and under
take to punish as offenses acts that are
matters of private right beyond the power
ofaCongress to prohibit or interfere with,
and that the forbidden operation is in
separable from thespermissible operation
and that the whole act is therefore void,
the court said:
| 1T is the dutv of tho courtc tn tsLa a
liberal view of the situation presented to
the Legislature in such cases, ami to
give It's acts providing therefor sensible
construction, such as will effectuate the
| legislative Intention so as to avoid an
UNJUST or absurd conclusion"
RELYING ON A LOTTERY.
1t further says: without the necessity
of declaring that the acts proved in this
case constitute the conduct of lottery or
gift enterprise, as those words are COM
monty understood, or even of finding that
the element Of chance operates intention
ally and distinotively in the scheme of
the Trading Stamp Company, we think,
nevertheless, that they come within the
prohibition of the statute, which furnish
es its own definition of gift enter
prise. "
This scheme, the Appellate Court says,
could hardly have come more within the
scope OF the statute had it been well
known and expressly in the contempla-
ton of Congress at the time of the enact
ment. The court adds: 1.-THE premiums
of the Trading Stamp Company must
be grossly overvalued, or the company
must rely upon the failure of the presenta-
ton OF many of the stamps, which is re-
lying upon lottery. The prohibition of
such scheme is clearly within the power
Of Congress within this District, and the
statute under which the prosecution
has been maintained makes application
for its exercises. -
THE COMPANY ARRAIGNED.
With reference to the Trading Stamp
Company the court says: "The Washing
ton Trading STAMP Company and its
agents are not merchants engaged in
business as that term is commonly I'M
derstood.. They are not dealers in ordin-
airy merchandise, engaged in legitimate
attempt to obtain purchasers for their
goods by offering fair and lawful in
ducements to trade. Their business ia
| the exploitation of nothing more or less
| than cunning device.
with no stock in trade but that device
and the necessary books and stamps and
so-called premiums with which to operate
it SUCCESSFULLY, they have interviewed in
the legitimate business carried on in the
District of Columbia between seller and
buyer, not for the advantage of either.
but to prey on both. They sell nothing
to the person to whom they furnish the
premiums They pretend simply to act
for his benefit and advantage by forcing
their stamps upon perhaps unwilling
| merchant, who pays them in cash at the
rate of S. thousand. There is not
shadow Of rational foundation for the
| stamp company's claim that it confers
benefit upon buyers by procuring for
them an actual discount"
In comparing the scheme of the stamp
company with that of merchants who give
away articles with their purchases, the
| court says In the case of the latter they
have no exhibition in their stores the ar
tieles which they offer as an inducement
| to purchasers, while with the stamp COM
pany the merchants giving the stamps
can only promise their patrons that they
Will receive certain articles to be given by
the stamp company. The purchaser does
not see the articles that he may receive at
the time of his purchase. The court holds
that Mr. Lansburgh is an accomplice of
the stamp company and is jointly liable.
In conclusion the court holds that the
Police Court committed no error in pass
ing Judgment upon the defendants, and
the judgment Is affirmed.
PLANS OF THE MERCHANTS.
When seen last night by Reporter for
The Post, Manager Sperry, of the Trad
ing stamp Company, had nothing to say
until he4had consulted with his attorney.
he SAID, however, that the opinion was a
surprise to him, and that as soon as he
heard 1t ne quit business, and would, of
course, ahideiby the decision of the court.
Inc company he represents has over 100
agencies throughout the United States,
ana this is the first time that there has
peen any judicial interference with its
| business.
Others who were engaged in tho stamp
business had but little 10 say. They
AWARDED the decision of the courts, and
VIII now bs guided by whatever action
1he stamp company may take. AS to
w VIM plans they might pursue, they, We're
nou IN position to say last night, as
| Un6y 90 not know what tho oo1o,nRr1y DrO-