Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-03-30
JUSTICE WRIGHT'S DECISION
Says Law Deprives One of Liberty
Guaranteed by Constitution.
CONCERNS RAIDS LAST YEAR
Opinion Rendered in Connection
With Demurrers Filed by Alte-
mus, Celia and Others.


District of Columbia. 1t is no offense to
be a keeper Of such a place. and conse-
quentiy no indictment for maintaining a
bucket shop or for conspiring to operate
one in the District can be sustained.
decision to this effect was rendered
today by Justice Wright of the Supreme
Court Of the District of Columbia, In
which he declares the amendment to the
code defining ''bucketing' is unconstitu-
tional as depriving the citizen Of the I'D
erty to contract guaranteed by the Con-
stitution. Justice Wrights decision was
rendered In connection with the demur-
rers filed by Edward Altemus. Louis
Celia. Angelic Celia and other alleged
bucket shop men.
Unless an appeal. which the government
will note from the decision. results In a
reversal Of the finding OF Justice Wright,
today's action by the court Will deal
death blow to the efforts of the Depart
ment Of Justice to reach the men higher
up In the bucketing game in this coun-
try.
April Q 1910 after procuring indlct-
ments for alleged conspiracy to operate
q bucket shop in this city against Ed
ward AItemus, Louis Celia. Angelo Celia
and twcn;y-siX other alleged bucketshop
men, the Department of Justice swooped
down on supposed bucket shops in seven
cities of the country at one time. Wires
were -cCt, the alleged operators and their
customers We're thrown into panic and
the arrest of the principal men among
the twenty-nine indicted was accom-
plished.
Indicted in Groups.
The men were indicted in three groups.
One comprised A,temus and the Cellas,
who were supposed to operate in the
wes.: another was E. s. Bosss & Co. OF
Fh.iadeiphia and Jersey City and the
third w2s q Baltimore concern known as
Frice & Co.
TIE Baltimore contingent flied a de-
mu,rer to the conspiracy charge, and to
q sIbsecaen. indictment for actually op-
Grating bucket shop under the amend
me-. to section $50 OF the CODE and
k,owo es Ss8a sndss s6fAe. whieh Ssse De-
partmcnt of Justice had secured in the
interval Technical objections formed the
basis Of these demur-ers. but no attack
was made On the constitutionality of the
enactment This matter is still pending
for decision before Justice Gould.
Three Of the principals in the firm Of
Boggs & Co., Richard z. Preusser, Leo
Mayer and George Turner. January 3 last,
abandoned the idea OF fighting the indict-
mont and pleaded guilty before Justice
Wright. Three others, employees Of the
firm. also pleaded guilty.
Justice Wright imposed fines aggregat-
Ing $8tC0 on the six men, In addition to
short terms In the penitentiary The i'm
were paid. The remaining men charged
in that group Of alleged offenders were
allowed TO go free by the nole pros route.
Counsel for Altemus and the Cellas
and those indicted with them laid stress
Oh the unconstitutionality of the act,
claiming that the only construction of
which the phraseology Of these sections
is susceptible would give them an opera
ton SO broad as to prohibit the purcli iase
BY citizens Of anything movable that is
bought or sold, as well as the purchase
OF any securities whatever. and therefore.
they claimed, the sections penalized in
Discriminatory and generally the making
of contracts by citizens and thus de-
stroyed that liberty of the citizens to
make contracts which' the Constitution
protects.
The prosecution contended that the cap
ton of the act was to be considered in
the determination Of the purpose of the
les1siat,on. and that should be resorted
to for the purpose of removing any doubt
arising out OF the verhiage Of the act
Opinion Of Justice Wright.
La his opinion. afte: setting forth the
two sections verbatim, Justice Wright
says:
Before examining the meaning Of the
body OF the sections it is well to reach
q conclusion as to what, II any, effect the
phraseology Of the heading can exert IN
determining IL. The particular heading
undoubtedly indicates a purpose which
Congress declares itself about to exc
cute; but q declaration Of purpose Is not
les execution II the phreseology Is am
biguous the heading or declaration may
very apprOpria tely be consulted In de-
termining which of two possible meanings
occupied the legislative mind: II ono
meaning y In harmony with the purpose
declared In the heading and tie other
meaning In dtscord. the purpose express ed
in the heading makes the way clear:
but purpose to legislate is to be executed
by the Legislature and IL the purpose Is
not carried to effect In the body Of the
act the unexecuted declaration of pur.
pose In the heading does not supply IT,
The heading Cam be adopted by courts
to supply TO the body of statute terms
which II does not contain
The court points out that section Sob
only provides a punishment and that but
to two classes: Those who make any
contract defined In the preceding section
and those who are the keepers Of any
bucketshop. 1t is to be noted, the court
says. that bucketing or bucket shopping &,
0ItnOOSn QeuncU py the preceding
ton. Is not penalized-
Taking up the first class penalized rhe
opinion directs attention to the fact that
section S69a defines contract to mean any
agreement. trade or transaction and no.
where else in the section Is the word con-
tract defined.
IF IL Is 10 be given the meaning which
the section requires II to have" continues
the court. the word embraces every kind
OF agreement, trade or transaction that
the ingenuity Of man can devise or his
temporal needs require. If this law is
broad enough TO penalize the making of
all kinds of agreements. trades or trans
actions. to prohibit all kinds Of ayyee.
ments, trades and transactions its In.
validity is established. The court is driven
to the conclusion that II the meaning OF
language is any longer to be considered
an element In the construction Of statutes
the phraseology Incorporated In these
sections penalties generally and indis.
crininateIy the making of contracts and
that the act Is therefore void.
Refutes Prosecutions Contentious.
The court then proceeds to refute the
contention of the prosecution that the
oily contracts intended TO be penalized