The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-10-21
LOTTERY TICKETS BY EXPRESS
JEDERAL POWER TO FORBID DIS
PITED IN HIGHEST COURT.
,ppeliants Argue That There's No Com.
merce In II and That the Power TO
Regulate such Trafffc Remains Solely
NTH the States-A Decision soon.

he nleN STATES NupltfNt 'ouI' VIII
soon hand down rs decision in the case
nf Charles f. Champion, appellant, against
Linn { Ames. a United States Marshal.
The case. which was appealed TO the United
STATES supreme Court from the United
STATES Circuit Court for the Northern Dis
,ric- II Illinois. involves the right Of in
dIviduals 10 transport lottery tickets,
chances or shares from one place in the
United States 10 another by means her
than the United States mails. Implicated
nth this case. for the purposes Of argu-
mont Is that Of Francis against the United
States which involves the right of indi-
,iiuals 10 transport policy slips from one
place in the United States TO another by
means other than the United States mails.
Iba case, or rather the two cases have
2 peculiar interest. because. II the con-
,antion of William u. Guthrie. counsel
for Champion. is upheld. lottery COM
pauies and policy shops may Use the ex-
rress companies Of the United States at
will 70 transport their tickets and slips
from one end of the United States TO the
other
In the Champion case. the offence char ged
in each count Of the indictment il the act
Of delivering, in the State Of Texas. 10 the
Wells-Fsrgo Express Company, a box con-
tanning papers. certificates or instru-
men's purporting 10 be or 70 represent
tickets chances, shares or interests. de-
pendent upon the event Of lottery" for
transportation to Fresno, Cal. The offence
charged in the Francis case ia "a conspiracy
10 cause 10 be CARRIED from Newport,
Ky. 10 Cincinnati. Ohio, papers repre-
senting what are known as policy slips
10 the causing of lottery tickets or policy
slips to be carried from one State to another
and neither case involves the transfer
Of lottery advertisements.
In the Champion case. the lottery tickets
purpor, TO be issued by the Pan american
Lottery Company Of Asuncion, Paraguay.
The indictment does not charge, however.
and no evidence was submitted in the trial
Of the case 10 show that the tickets were
printed elsewhere than in the United States
The Francis case presents no element Of
international commerce or foreign re-
lations The United States Government
holds, however. that both offences are in
contravention OF the act Of Congress Of
March 2. 1895. commonly known as the
Federal Anti-Lottery law and entitled:
An act for the suppression Of lottery
traffic through national and interstate
commerce, and the postal service subject
TO the jurisdiction and laws Of the United
States Section l, Of the act reads:
Any person who shall cause to be brought
within the United states from abroad. FOR
the purpose OF disposng Of the same, or do;
posted IN Of carried by the mails of the United
IN The tinted States. any paper. certificate
or instrument purportinG to be or represent
ticket. chance, share or interest In or de.
M. lottery sO-Clllp6
gIft concert. or similar enterprise. Offering
prizes dependsnt upon lot or chance. or shall
sg.called gift concert or similar enterprise.
Offering prizes dependent upon lot or change.
posted 10 or carried by the mails OF the United
states, or transferred from one state to
o' ,, in os s s' bS .ha be oF IN
more than two years or by fine of not more
t.n sLer. or both, and IN the sc copd and
after ohenc 's by such Imprisonment only
The contention of Champion and Francis
a, raised by Mr.. Guthrie is that this act Is
unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits
Tho carriage or transfer Of lottery matter
from one State 10 another by any means
other than the mails: In support II this
contention Mr. Guthrie. in arguing the case.
quoted from a decision Of Justice Field Of
the United States Supreme Court that
congress does not POSSESS the power 70
prevent the transportation in other ways
a. merchandise, of matter which it excludes
from the mails
After quoting from Justice Field, Mr.
Guthrie presented an ingenious and inter-
c-lng argument in support of the appel
ant contention, i'll the course OF which
BE- said
he point in this case. as TO the power OF
congress 70 prohibit the carriage or transfer
Of lottery matter from one state to another
must b. discussed and determined as ques-
Won OF interstate commerce, pure and simple
separated from those considerations which
l"!atn only 10 importntions from abtoa d,
AND when ar" not common 10 International
10 appellant, contend that lottery
'"Ael or adyer,ls"p,ent Is not al, article OF
'oun"rc", tuat N" conduct Of lotteries
and The sale o! lottcry or policy tickets u
not commerce that the protection Of the
e,ils nj lotteries should be lett where /, was
10" intention Of the trainers OF the Con-tl-
luton TO leave all such Eolice res,ilat'ons.
- permit. or to prohibit and that the power
:" regulate commerce never was intended
~nal not bo carried from state TO State.
without regard TO the commercial character
o, me matter carri"d Indeed. II ,he given
.rsss derive any power TO regu late IL
w 80 much As the law under conSdera-
Ton Is aimed against he lottery ticket or
laptr started or delivery was made or at
IN" rdto- where the PAPER will find itself.
or Wh'ro the contract may tax. effect az
tho end Of IL tourney, II Is an attempt TO
interfere WIN the local police regulations
90" not 'utcr~iit" commerce, but AZ most
Interstate wagering, such as insurance and
other forms Of speculation or gambling
i i true that lotteries. which were once eX =
'"EslNelv engas cd IN. have gradually fallen
Hio dlsrepute and become illegitlmata,
md That the states. in the exercise Of their
lohce powers, have one by one prohibited
'asm. and Ia aid Of tins prohibition have
,Essed laws iorbiddng the Introduction
~ a.'ernsements and papers, from other
''fefles did not make them interstate COM
Ir"r'e. II they VAS not so before. or diminish
''e ro"sr, Of the respective Stntes TO per.
nv. regulate, or Prohibit them II the
mango mad any effect. " must have been
f'Fe reverse
y may he admitted that. II commerce
means intercourse. in tho broads-t sense
~ that term. then tho legislation IN Ques-
Ion Is within the power delegated to Com
efess Bp' II the word commerce was not
intended 10 include all the signifcations
ana range ~ the word intercourse, then u
"Ul be assumed NAT no argument will be
lfteAilv listened 10 which sought to urge
rr2n tIls court the PROPOSITION that IL is
'rhln me judicial province 10 inter pola'o
"f substitute 10 place OF commerce the word
I'erCoirSc. which The trainers Of tho Con
Ntrtlon, 10 their Wisdom. saw ~ not to us'
~ insert The word intercourse. in on,
OF rs slsnlNcations or aspects. may wei
1FS"N doScIl he commerce. vet, obviously