The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-02-24
CAN'T CARRY TICKETS
SUPREME COURT DELIVERS a
BLOW AT LOTTERIES.
ARE ARTICLES OF TRAFFIC
AND NOT TO DE HANDLED BY COM
MON CARRIERS.


States-Were Knotty Ones TO De-
cide-COurt Split in Its Decision.
Justices Harlan and Holmes De-
Iivered Opinions Against the De-
PENDANTS and Chief Justice Fuller
Expressed the Contrary View.
Washington, Feb. 23.-The power of
Congress to prohibit the sending of
lottery tickets from one state to an
other by other means than the United
States mails was passed on to-day by
the United States Supreme Court. The
question arose in connection with two
cases, that of Champion versus the
United States, and that of Francis
versus the United States, and in both
cases the constitutionality of the act
of Congress in 1895, prohibiting the
transmission of lottery tickets from
one state to another by express or
otherwise was challenged.
The opinion in the Champion case
was delivered by Justice Harlan and
sustained the validity of the law. In
the Francis case Justice Holmes spoke
for the court holding that the offense
alleged did not come within the scope
of the law in question. The cases have
been on the docket of the Supreme
Court for a long time and evidently
presented many knotty problems to
the court.
Wanted to Ship Tickets.
Champion, at the time of his arrest,
was in Chicago representing what was
known as the Pan-American Lottery
of Paraguay. The particular charge
against him was that of delivering a
box of lottery tickets to the Wells
Fargo Express Company in Texas for
shipment to California. He was ar
rested in Chicago to be taken to Texas
and Immediately sued out a writ of
habeaS corpus, which the federal
circuit court sitting in Chicago re-
fused to grant He appealed from
that adverse decision to the Supreme
Court, and it is this appeal which was
decided to-day, the decision being adj
verse to him.
Francis operated in Cincinnati and
was charged with conducting a policy
shop. The numbers were selected by
players in Newport, just across the
Ohio river in Kentucky and brought
ferry or over bridge by carriers.
This, it was charged, was a violation
of the statute of SIS, and Francis was
| arrested and found guilty His sem
tence was affirmed by the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the SiXtr Circuit
and the case then removed to the Su-
preme Court. The effect of Justice
Holmes decision reversing the lower
courts is to send the case back for a
new trial
Contention of Defense.
The principal, contention of counsel
for the lottery men was that the sup
preston of lotteries belongs exclusive
ly to the police power of the several
states and is not a federal function,
and that consequently the law of 1895
is in derogation of the tenth amend
ment of the constitution, which pro-
vides that the powers not delegated
to the United States by the consdtu-
ton, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states, respective
ly, or to the people," They also con-
tended that the sending of lottery
tickets or policy slips from one state
to another does not constitute an act
of interstate commerce.
Justice Harlans opinion in the
Champion case proceeded entirely on
the theory that the transmission of
lottery tickets from one state to an
other is form of interstate commerce,
because they are a subject of traffic
and have a money value, and hence
that the law was a regulation of inter-
state commerce. i
Replying to the contention that the
statute in this case prohibits rather
than regulates, commerce, and that
such was not the intention of the con-
stitution, Justice Harlan said:
Harlan's Opinion.
Are we prepared to say that pro-
vision which is, in effect, prohibition
of the carriage Of such articles from
state to state is not a fit or appropri-
ate mode for the regulation of that
particular kind of commerce? If the
suppression of lottery traffic, carried
on through interstate commerce, is a
matter of which Congress may take
cognizance, and over which its power
may be exerted can it be possible that
it is helpless to suppress such traffic
as carried on through interstate COM
merce? Must it tolerate the traffic,
and simply regulate the manner in
which it may be carried on? Or may
not Congress, for the protection of the
people of all the states, and under the
power to regulate interstate commerce,
devise such means, within the scope of
T. as will drive that traffic out of COM
nerce among the states?
IF state, when considering legisla-
ton for the suppression of lotteries
within its own limits, may properly
take into view the evils that inhere in
the raising of money, i'm that mode,
why may not Congress, invested with
the power to regulate all commerce
among the several states, provide that
such commerce shall not be polluted by
the carrying of lottery tickets from one
state to another"
Injurious TO Morals.
Referring to the fact that the law
makes the offense criminal, he said:
Surely 1t will not be said to be a
part of any ones liberty, as recognized
by the supreme law of the land that
he shall be allowed to introduce into
commerce among the states an element
that will be confessedly injurious to
the public morals"
Summing up, Justice Harlan said
I'VE decided nothing more In the
present case than that lottery tickets
are subjects of traffic among those
who choose to sell or buy them; that
the carriage OF such tickets by in
dependent carriers from one state and
another Is therefore interstate com
merce: that under its power 10 regu-
late commerce among the several
states, Congress--subject to the linita-
lions imposed by the Constitution upon
the exercise OF the powers granted
has plenary authority over such COM
merce, and may prohibit the carriage
IConunued on Eighth Page.l