Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1906-05-29

II some time reader of the Democrat
should wonder that In report OF fan
the fact that Mrs. John Smith sgot the
quilt" was not mentioned, It may per-
haps be explainable on the ground that
the quilt was awarded by some form OF
lottery, and that therefore the publica.
ton Of the result through the United
States mails was strictly illegal. The
Democrat Is good moral paper, and be-
lieves 10 observing the law because 1t is
the law, even when there 10 little likeli-
hood of its being invoked, unless there
IL profit enough In q violation OF the
law to quiet an uneasy conscience:
Very few people understand how
stringent are the United States laws re.
garding lotteries, and how strict tho in
depreciation of them by the post office
department. The simple announcement
that Mrs. John Smith guessed the near
eat to the number of beans In bottle,
and thereby won the silk quilt, 10 tech
nically sufficient to exclude an issue OF
the paper from the mails, and make the
publisher liable to fine or imprisonment.
It probably wouldn't produce either
result, but 1t has that potentiality.
e. P. Adler of the Davenport Iowa)
Times, being Of an investigating turn OF
mind, year or two since referred a
matter of this kind to the department,
and We will let him give his story of the
affair and the reply OF the department:
"Along the line of the lottery ruling
of the post Office department ! will tell
you of little experience and CORES
pondence have just had in Davenport.
We have there good many church
fairs and raffles of various kinds con-
Quoted by the people. We are always
asked to publish the results Of these as
we'll as to tell who won the pair of slip
pers donated by John Smith, the popular
shoe man. I have understood that the
department prohibited any direct ref
erence to lottery or chance, but that
where the article or notice was handled
in q yelled manner by simply stating
that William Morgan received the pair
of slippers, etc., 1t would be allowed to
60 through. In order to test the mat
ter ! some time ago had our local de-
partment write up labor union fair,
giving the prizes won by various parties
and their names, but no reference as to
how they were secured. then cut the
article out and forwarded 1t to the post
office department for its perusal and q
ruling, giving all the facts in the case.
quote herewith from the reply of r. P.
Goodwin, assistant attorney general OF
the post office department: your com.
of Dec. has been referred
to this Office. In reply to the inquiry
therein you are Informed
that the advertisement of raffles, draw |
ings and like schemes of lot or chance |
designed for the distribution of prizes |
as we'll as guessing contests of all kinds |
Is held to come within the prohibitions OF
the postal lottery statutes and to render |
all publications containing such adver- |
tisements unavailable. The depositing
In the mails of such publications or of
circular matter containing advertise. |
ments of such enterprises constitutes a |
penal offense under these statutes.
Among the provisions contained In them |
Is one to the effect that newspapers |
lists of the prizes awarded
as the result of such schemes are like |
wise unavailable and that 1t is an offense |
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or |
both, to transmit such publications in
the mails. The list of prizes contained
In the marked article regarding the in |
dustrial fair to which you refer renders
the edition of the Times containing 1t
and such edition should |
have been excluded from the mails by |
the postmaster at Davenport So by
this you can see that came near going
In iail -