The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-03-25
LOTTERY TICKET DECISION
THE ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE LOTTERY
TICKET CASE AND HOW THE COURT DECIDED
TWAS ALMOST EVENLY DIVIDED.
rrom the sprInFaeld RepubIican.

From the Springfield Republican.
1t appears that the United States supreme sharply
divided the decision in relation to the interstate transpora
ton of lottery tickets Justice Harlan read the majority opinion
which agreed to by Justices Brown White McKema and
Holmes Chief Justice Fuller read dissenting opinion in
which Justices Brewer Peckham and Shras joined Thus the
court again on great constitutional question: is closely dvd-
ed as in the insular and the income tax
Congress in 1890 excluded lottery tickets from the United
States mails and its right do this has not been questioned n
1896 Congress prohibited the carriage of lottery tickets from
state to another by express companies or other uanp0a0n
agencies and the consuonaty of this involved in the
decision just The whole turned upon the consu
ona provision giving Congress the regulate inter
commerce. and the majority opinion is thus summed up by
Justice Harlan:
We decide nothing in the present than that lottery
tickets subjects of traffic among those who choose sell
buy that the carriage of such tickets by independent
from state to another therefore interstate commerce.
that under its power regulate commerce among the several
Congresssubec the limitations imposed by the con-
stuon upon the exercise of the powers granedhas penary
authority such commerce. and may prohibit the OF
that legislation that end and of
that character not any limitation estrc
imposed upon the exercise OF the powers granted to Con-
gress.
Chief Justice Fuller and the minority the other hand
tend in substance That lottery tickets IS not cont
merce kind that such tickets merely
and furnish the of enforcing
right and thus resemble insurance policies whose dstru-
ton the court has decided not to be interstate com
nerce furthermore the right regulate interstate
does necessarily include the right to prohibit interstate COM
and that right prohibit certainly exists in this case
The far-reachng nentia OF the majority opn
obvious and recognized by the court Justice Har
LAM while conendng that the right to regulate interstate COM
includes the right prohibit careful to limit the scope
the courts judgment this particular to the in hand
where the article of public morals and
evil recognized such throughout the nation But if the right
regulate includes the right prohibit in where robl-
ton IS generally recognized desirable Congress then
prohibit trusmade articles when the a-
tude generally hostile to such under
policy of non-regulation of the trusts?
The court avoids going into the question of how far
reaching logically opinion be- But it is difficult to escape
the conviction that upon this opinion the consttutona may DC
antitrust bill that reported to the Senate
Chairman Hoar OF the judiciary committee excluding from
such corporations and combinations as
refuse to adjust their capitalization and other affairs the
uurements of this of federal regulation But the close
division indicates that the enactment of measure
like Hoar-Lehed bill would precpltate sharp contest III
the of the constitutional provision relating
to the power national government interstate COM