The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-12-16
LOTTERY CASES ARGUED.
The Decision May Anect the President's
Antitrust Programme.

WASHINGTON. Dec. l5.-Arguments were
presented before the United States Suprem,
Court this morning which may have bear.
ing OF the highest possible import lance OF
President Roosevelt's programme for con.
trolling interstate trade in trust made
commodities.
The cases argued to-day are the 80 called
lottery cases. They were first argued in
October. 1901, and reargument was had
in April Of the present year. On account
of the death of Just ice Gray further
reargument war ordered. which was begun
this morning, with Justice Holmes on the
bench rs Mr.. Gray's successor.
While the power Of the Government 10
exclude lottery matter from the mails has
been sustained, yet the business was con-
Quoted through the agency Of the express
companies To prevent this. Congress in
1895 passed. an act which prohibited the
carriage or transfer by any means Of lottery
matter from State TO State. Under this
act two ARRESTS were made, one for con-
veying lottery matter by the Wells Fargo
Express Company from Texas 10 Cali
fornia. and in the other case the defendant
was arrested for carrying a lottery ticket
from Newport, XIV, to Cincinnati, Ohio
The validity Of these arrests is the point
involved in these cases. and, apart from
the ability to suppress lotteries, the cases
are believed 70 be very important az defn-
ing the nature and extent of the Federal
power over interstate commerce.
John q. Carlisle and William ID. Guthrie
of the New York bar. Judge Outcalt OF
Cincinnati and Montz Rosenthal of Chica
go represented the lottery companies. They
contend that lottery tickets are not articles
of commerce. and that their carriage from
State to state il not commerce within the
meaning of the Federal Constitution
They argue that lottery tickets are anao-
gous to insurance policies. a. to which the
court had decided that they Were not arti-
Giles Of commerce They further contend
that even il the carriage of lottery tickets
was interstate commerce, that the power Ia
regulate" under the Constitution was not
broad enough TO include the power to pro
hibit" altogether.
Assistant Acknowledgement James VI.
Beck. who represented the Government
argued that the carriage of these tickets
was commerce. He contended that com
morce meant intercourse in its broadcast
Specification, and that therefore. the mere
transit of individuals from State to State
is interstate commerce. In any event. he
commended, the carriage or conveyance
of things from State to State by any means
Of transportation il commerce. without
regard to the character of the thing carried
as transportation IL ,',self a commerce.
by the fact that the Supreme Court has
seen fiji to require three oral arguments
Of the propositions involved II was said
at III" Department Of Justice this morning
that the decision in these cases may have an
important bearing upon the question of
Federal regilat ion OF trusts for II the Gov
eminent contention that the transit OF in
dividuals from State to State Is commerce,
and subject To regulation, and that the
power to regulate II the power to prohibit
The power TO control all interstate trade
in trust made commodities upon conditions
that Congress might prescribe. would follow
~ p consequence.
If the other content ion should prevail
il il believed by many that the Federal
Government would have little power over
the trusts beyond that embodied in the
Sherman Antitrust law. For these reasons
the case has attracted general attention
among lawyers in Congress and in official
circles generally, and because Of its impor-
tant bearing upon current political prob
lens. the decision l. awaited with great
interest.