The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-02-24
Supreme Justices at Washington
Deliver Opinions in Two I'm
pOrtant Cases.
CONGRESS WITHIN ITS RIGHTS.
Tickets Are Articles of Commerce
and So Subject to Regulation
by Federal Government
New Trial in One Case.

Washington, Feb. 23.-The power of Con-
sress TO prohibit the sending of lottery
tickets from one State to another By other
means than United States mails was passed
upon 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 constitution
ciity of the act Of Congress of 1895, pro-
hiSitinG the transmission of lottery tickets
from one State TO another by express O.
otherwise, was challenged
, The opinion In the Champion case was do
iNsred by justice Harlan. and sus.ains the
validity of the law.
in the Francis case Justice Holmes spoke
Tor the court holding that the offense al
legged did not come within the scope of the
law in question.
Suprs me Court for long time. and evil
ucHtiy led r,1anE lS1otty problems to
the court. The two have been argued
twice together. and the Champion case was
argued once alone before the Francis case
yeached the court. Both were criminal
SENT BY EXPRESS.
champion. at the time of his arrest. was
IN Chicago representing what was known
as the Pan-Ainerican Lottery of Paraguay.
Inc particular charge against him was tina [
OF dellvering box of lottery tickets to
the Wells Fargo Express Company in
TeXas for shipment to California.
He was arrested in Chicago. 10 be taken
10 IeNas. and Immediately sued out writ
of abens corpus. which the Federal Circuit
Court sitting in Chicago refused to grant.
he appealed from that adverse decision to
the Supreme Court. and it is this appeal
which was decided to-day. the decision be-
ing adverse to him.
Francis operated in Cincinnati O.. and
was charged with conducting "a policy
shop. The numbers were selected by
Piaysrs s;,a s., in Newport. Just across the Ohio
main office In Cincinnati by ferry or over
{. bridge by carriers.
This. 1t was charged. was violation Of
Il statute of '95. and Francis was arrested
and found guilty. His sentence was affirmed
by the Circuit Court Ct Appeals for the
sixth circuit and the case was then re-
moved to the, Supreme Court. The effect of
Justice Holiness decision reversing the low
er courtG Is TO send the case back for a
new trial.
LOTTERY MEMS. STAND.
The principal contention OF counsel for the
lottery men was that the suppression Of
lotteries belongs exclusively to the police
power Of the several States and is not \
ieuefal junction and that consequently the
law IN 1885 Is in derogation of the tenth
amendment Of the Constitution. which pro-
yiies that the powers not delegated to the
United states by the Constitution nor pro-
hibited by 1t to the States are reserved to
the States respectively or to the people"
They also eontended that the sending of
lottery tickets or policy slips from one
state to another does not constitute an
act OF interstate commerce.
- ne cases were 1irSt argued In February,
l?ol, and by reason of a divided court on
the Champion case they were again argued
October 1G 1901. Justice Gray's death made
a third arsament necessary. which took
place on December 5. 1892 - -
- el,a s.ILARLAN'S OPINION. 81
Justice Hafian's opinion in the Champion
case proceeded entirely on the theory that
the transmission Of the lottery tickets from
one State to another is form of Interstate
commerce, because they are a subject of
traffic: and have money value. and hence
that the law was regulation of interstate
commerce.
Those who Joined with Justice Harlan in
sustaining the law were Justices Brown
White McKenpa and Holmes.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Brewer
Shiras and Beckham united in a dissenting
opinion. delivered by the Chief Justice
In overruling the Court of Appeals and
the. Circuit Court in the Francis case. in
which the offense charged consisted in car
ryirg the policy slips. or certificates, from
Kentucky across the Ohio River to Ohio
Justice Holmes said:
The assumption has been that the sips
carried from Kentucky to Ohio were papers
purporting TO be. or to represent a ticket
or interest. In lottery. But. in our opin-
ion. these papers did not purport to be, or
do, either"