The Washington times., 1902-04-21
Important Decision Ex-
pected in US. Supreme
Court Today.
RULING MAY RESTRAIN THE TRUSTS
The Case Itself Grows Out of Express
Companies Handling Lottery Tickets
From One State to Another-The Court
Said to Be Divided.

A decision which. in the opinion of many
lawyers. will be of greater significance
than any other in reference to the power
of Congress to regulate interstate com
nerce. is expected TO be handed down by
the Supreme Court of the United States
today or next Monday at the --latest.
The case is that OF Charles F. Cham
pion vs.. John c. Ames. United States mar
shall. ard has been before the Supreme
Court for some time on appeal from the
United States circuit court for the north
crn district of Illinois.
Although the question is essentially that
of the right of the Federal Government
to prohibit the carrying of lottery tick
cts by express companies engaged in in
terstate traffic, it is expected that the
forthcoming decision will throw much
light on the power Of Congress to restrain
the power of trusts. For long time it
has been held that under the Sherman
antitrust law, as it stands at present,
courts cannot be invoked to restrain Gem
binations of manufacturers, but only com
binations of transportation companies en-
gagged in interstate trade
1t is believed that should the Champion
Ames case be decided in favor of the Gov
ernmcnt Congress may find in the decision
the power to prohibit interstate traffic in
any article which is produced by a trust
1t is known that President Roosevelt
and Attorney General Knox are looking
forward to this decision with a great
deal of interest and that In case of a
decree for the Government important ac
tion against Industrial combinations may
follow. The case differs radically from
any that has heretofore been presented
to the Supreme Court. and it is an open
secret that several of the justices re-
gard the settlement Of the questions in
volved as of unusual Importance. 1t is
also known that the court is divided on
the issue.
Argued Last October.
Trial arguments in the case were made
last October. James NJ. Beck, assistant
attorney general representing the appel
lee. The appeal was from an order of
the circuit court discharging an applica
ton for a writ of habeas corpus and re-
handing the appellant to the custody of
the United States marshal. The appellant
had been committed on June % 1899 in
default of bail 10 answer an Indictment.
under a complaint which charged him
with causing to be carried from Texas to
other States by express lottery tickets
and lottery advertisements.
Ex-senator George f. Edmunds appeared
for the appellant.
Of Great Importance.
A hint Of the great Importance attached
to the case is contained in that part OF
Mr.. Edmunds' argument in which he says:
IF this attempt to deal with the social
conduct and condition of the people of the
State be upheld there Is no phase of life
in the States any element or Incident of
which involves the passing of persons or
things from one State to another that
does not fall within the power OF Con-
gress to control according to its own dis
erection. 1t may make it a crime for any
person 10 cross the line between two
States on Sunday. although the two States
may have made peaceful entrance lawful
on that day, and conversely 1t may au-
thoriZe all business intercourse between
two States to be carried on on Sunday,
contrary TO the laws Of both"
MI Beck's Reply.
Replying to this. Mr.. Beck said:
This Is an extreme and erroneous
statement Of the Government contention.
The lottery act does not pretend to regu-
late the social conduct Of the people of
the States with reference to the purchase
Of lottery tickets. or to say that lotteries
themselves are illegal. II It had attempt
cd to prohibit the citizens of a State from
conducting a lottery or from purchasing
an interest in a lottery it would have
clearly been trespassing on the police
power Of the States. The statute simply
prohibits interstate traffic in lottery tick
cts, a wholly different thing, and leaves
the people of the States at liberty to per
nit or forbid lotteries within their own
boundaries
There is no analogy whatever between
the suppression of Interstate traffic in a
thing which is the subject of purchase
and sa.s and a statute forbidding a per
son from crossing the boundaries o! a
State on Sunday. The one deals with the
right OF entry into a State, ard has no
necessary relation whatever to commerce;
the other deals with a necessary incident
70 Interstate tTa1ic in uiIrcl a sa lIe forn-