The Penn's Grove record., 1903-02-27
MAY TRAFFIC
Power Of Congress Over Commerce
Affirmed by the Supreme Court
The Lottery Case Decidcd-The Courl
Stood Five to Foyr-Dissenting opin-
ioa Filed by. the CHIEF Justice.

washington, ID. q. The Supreme
Court handed down its decisions in tho
so-called lottery cases and affirmed the
power Of Congress to prohibit the send
ing Of lottery tickets from one State to
another by other means than the Uni
ted States mails. The question arose
In connection with two cases, that of
Champion VS.. the United States and
that Of Francis VS.. the United States,
q in both cases the constitutionality
OF the act of Congress of 1895 prohibit
Ing the transmission of lottery tickets
from one State to another by express
or otherwise was challenged.
The question as to the constitutional
ity of the act of Congress was disposed
of in the opinion in the case Of Cham
pion VS.. Ames, in which the Supreme
Court. by q majority Of one, decided in
favor Of the Government and held that
the act was constitutional. The opin-
ion Of the majority was delivered by
Justice Harlan, and Justices Brown,
White, McKenna and Holmes con-
CURED with him. A vigorous dis
senting opinion was filed by the
Chief Justice, and concurred in by JUS
tees Brewer, Peckham and Shiras.
The opinions fully discuss the constitu-
tional questions which were discussed
IN b argument, and the opinion of-the
majority Of the court fully sustains the
contention of the Government.
In the Francis case, Justice Holmes
spoke for the court, holding that the
onense alleged did not come within the
scope Of the law in question. From
this conclusion Justice Harlan dis
scented.
The cases conclude a prolonged legal
contest over the power of the Federal
Government to prohibit the transmits
sion by means other than the mails Of
lottery matter. The questions involved
were first argued in 1897 in the case
OF Francis vs.. United States, but the
court, because of the peculiar facts Of
That case, did not find it necessary to
decide the main question of constitu-
tional power. The present cases first
argued in February. 1901, and by rea-
son of a divided court were again ar
gued October 16, 1901. Justice Gray's
death made a third argument neces-
sary. which took place on December
Is. 1902.
The lottery and express companies
were represented by former Senator |
George +. Edmunds, former Secretary |
John q. Carlisle, James C. Carter and
William D. Guthrie, of the New York |
oar. Assistant AttOrney-G General James
n. Beck represented the Government.
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-Far-
go Express Company in Texas for
shipment to California. He was arrest
ed IN Chicago to be taken to Texas, and
Immediately sued out a writ Of habeas
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, the de-
tislon being adverse to him.
francis operated in Cincinnati. Ohio. |
and was charged with conducting "a
policy shop" The numbers" were Sc |
lected by players in Newport, lust |
across tie Ohio River in Kentucky and |
brought to the main office in Cincin. |
natl by ferry or over q bridge by car
AAAc, > a Shdl Ct. WdS IL ElOs
lation of the statute Of 1895, and Fran
.s was arrested and found guilty. His |
sentence was affirmed by the Circuit |
Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. |
and the case then removed to the Su-
creme Court. The effect of Justice
Holiness decision reversing the lower |
courts is to send the case back for a
lew trial.
The principal contention of counsel |
Tor the lottery men was that the sup |
PRESTON of lotteries belongs exclusive
to the police power Of the several
states, and is not a Federal function.
Ind 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 Constitu- !
ton, nor prohibited by it to the States.
are reserved to the States respectively
or to the people," They also contend
that the sending Of lottery tickets or
policy slips from one State to another
does not constitute an act of inter.
State commerce.