New-York tribune., 1902-12-16
MAY AFFECT TRUSTS.
LOTTERY CASES ARGUED.
.Su7,reme C0urf-s Decision 47rGited
With Great Interest
rpv TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.l ]

Inv
washington Dec 15.-The so-called lottery
cases were reargued to-day in the Supreme
Court. They were first argued in October. lsol'
and again in April 1902 On account of Justice
f,-av's death a further argument was ordered
which WAS begun this morning. The cases are
important as the ability to prevent lotteries III
this country may depend on the final decision
While the power OF the government to exclude
lottery matter from the mails has been sus-
tanned the business has been continued through
-ba agency of express companies. and to pre-
vent this Congress in 1895 passed an act which
rrohihited the carriage or transfer by any
means of lottery matter from State to state.
Under this act two arrests were made. one for
conveying lottery matter by the Wells-Fargo
Fxpress COMPANY from Texas 10 California,
and in the other the defendant was arrested
for carrying a lottery ticket from Newport
Ky 10 Cincinnati The validity Of these arrests
is the point involved in these cases, but apart
from the governments ability 10 suppress lot
teries the cases are regarded as extremely i'm
portant in defining the nature and extent of the
federal power over interstate commerce.
John Q. Carlisle and William D. Guthrie of
the Nevv-York bar: Judge Outcalt. Of Cincinnati
and Moritz Rosenthal. of Chicago, represented
the lottery companies. They asserted that lot
terry tickets are not articles Of commerce. and
that their carriage from State to State is not
commerce within the meaning Of the federal
constitution: that lottery tickets are analogous
II insurance policies. which the court had de-
cided were not articles Of commerce. and that,
even if the carriage of lottery tickets was inter
state commerce the power to regulate under
the constitution was not broad enough TO in
clude the power prohibit" altogether.
BEARING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE..
Assistant Attorney General James NJ Beck.
who represented the government, argued that
the carriage Of these tickets was commerce. He
contended that commerce meant intercourse in
its hroadest significance. and. therefore. the
mere transit of individuals from State to State
is interstate commerce. In any event, he con-
tended that the carriage or conveyance of things
from State to State by any means of transporta-
ton. is commerce, without regard to the char
acter of the thing carried, transportation is
itself commerce. He further contended that
lottery tickets articles Of commerce He
argued that the history Of the constitution
clearly showed that commerce something
more than traffic, and meant all kinds of inter
course between one nation State and another,
and that its regulation clearly included the right
to prohibit
The Importance Of these cases is measured
by the fact that the Supreme Court has seen
fit TO require three oral arguments the propo-
sitions involved. The decision may have
important bearing on the question of federal
regulation of trusts, for if the government con-
tention that the transit Of individuals from
State to State is commerce and subject TO regu-
lation, and that the power to regulate is the
power TO prohibit, the power TO control all in
terstate trade in trust made commodities
conditions that Congress might prescribe would
follow a consequence. If the other conten-
ton should prevail II is believed by many
that The federal government would have little
power over the trusts beyond that embodied in
the Sherman Antitrust law For these rea-
sons the case has attracted general attention
in Congressional and official circles, and be-
cause of it's direct bearing current political
problems. the decision is awaited with consid-
cradle interest.