The Washington herald., 1908-03-12
THURSDAY. MARCH u. 1905.
Race.track GambIing-Latest Decisiou

AdSe-DaSk UambDUg-Iatest Decision
Justice Stanord's opinion upholding the
legality OF ambulatory bookmaking as
practiced at the Benning track is one Of
those judicial rulings calculated TO make
the ordinary citizen impatient with the
hne-spUn reasoning which characterizes
so much Interpretation Of statute law
We appreciate the fact that IN the case
at bar the law is defective, uncertain.
and apparently contradictory. so that
differences Of opinion concerning its ap-
plication are sure to arise and we appre-
ciate also the necessity Of adhering to
the plain intent Of the statute: yet We
cannot help feeling that Justice stat
fords opinion follows with exceeding
closeness the letter Of the law. and that.
although il makes distinctions between
acts lawful and acts unlawful that may
seem Indispensable 10 the legal mind, il
sets up differences that have no substan-
tial basis in morals or even in the physi-
cal conditions essential 90 the perform
ance Of the acts upon which conviction
was sought
The whole decision turns about the
words set Up In section SIS OF the Dis
tice Stafford asks. IN effect. between
making book and setting up bookmak-
ing? II the man in the street were asked
this question. he would al once reply
that he couldn't see the difference. But
II you read the opinion Of the learned
justice. you will see that there are nu-
merous differences between the two. ana
that the indictments against John Wal
ters failed TO show that making a book
was the same thing as setting up book
making, wherefore the indictments must
be Quashed. The essence Of the thing
done in either case is precisely the same
the wrong committed Is exactly the same.
the damage inflicted on public morals Is
as great II book is made as it is II
bookmaking is set up, yet because the
law says "set up" the one thing is legal
and the other thing is illegal, An act IS
wrong if done in fixed place with the
necessary appliances, but all right if
done on the move. with an outfit that can
be carried about the person!
Now, Of course. Justice Stafford is not
10 blame for this outrageous con-
diion of affairs. He has Interpreted the
law as he sees ft-conscientiously. we
haven't the shadow OF a doubt-but he
views the technicalities of the case diff
terently from some other judges. and
where a criminal code admits Of such
varying interpretations, the main trouble
is with the law. While the courts have
been splitting hairs for several years
over the anti-gambling law. nothing has
been done in the way Of improving the
law itself II would seem ordinary com
mon sense to perfect the law. instead Of
leaving it TO the courts and LAWYERS to
refine upon its meaning. As Justice Staf-
ford remarked. the responsibility for leg
islation rests with Congress. and It is the
duty OF that body 10 enact the anti-race-
track gambling legislation asked for bv
the Commissioners and demanded by the
best sentiment of the community.
But even with the law as it is. and as
interpreted by the courts, we do not be-
lieve the Commissioners or the district
attorney are helpless TO prevent book
making or to prosecute the gamblers
There are some very significant observa-
tons in Justice Stafford's opinion con-
corning the insufficiency Of the indict-
ments brought in the Walters case. 1t
may be possible so to frame an indict-
ment as 10 pass muster in the courts. If
II be shown with sufficient clearness that
bookmaking has been "set up" on the
Benning track. Mr.. Baker failed TO make
10 the satisfaction Of the court dis
tinction between two things that bear
an extraordinarily close resemblance in
essentials. but possibly a more skillfuI
splitting OF hairs might serve the mr.
pose But why should it be necessary to
indulge in so much subterfuge in order
10 outlaw in one portion of the District
what is plainly unlawful in a certain pre-
scribed territory?