Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1917-03-29
Governor,
(Seal)
NoedIJ
By the Governor:
Frank M. Rood,
Secreta airy of State.
AROUND THE poLIcAL POT

AROUND THE P0LICAL POT
] have asked the editor of the Fress
Press for the following, that the people
generally OF Pierre, may know what the
| laws of the State of South Dakota are.
relative to gambling, and also, what
the courts declare constitutes gamb-
ling. In giving you this, | wish to say
at the outset that It is taken from a
splendid, comprehensive and finished
address of the States Attorney of Trip
county, South Dakota, Roscoe Knodel,
given before the States Attorneys
meeting held here early in January Of
this year. .
A gambling device is defined to be
any thing which is used as a means of
playing for money or other thing of
value, 80 that the resalC depends more
largely on chance than skill.
Re Lee Tong (U. 81 Is Fed. 253 257:
Again, a gambling device is an instru-
mentality for the playing Of a game
upon which money, or other thing of
value may be lost or won; and the in
s~tiumentality is not necessarily intend
ed solely for gambling purposes.
A pool table for the use of which the
loser OF the game is, to the knowledge
of the keeper to pay, is a gambling de
vice within the meaning of the statutes
providing. punishment for one Who ex-
hibits such devices = State vs.. Sand
ers, 10 L, r. A. (NS) ol3.
A.poker table is a gambling device
State VS.. Mathis, 121 Am, st. Rep. 6S7
(Mo.)
Dice, cards, poker chips. and articles
of that nature are declared to be gamb-
ling deyices.-State vs. Oswald, 50 Kas.
sos.
a very common nuisance throughout
the state is the so called punch board.
1t is a gambling device. Z
1t is none the less gambling that the
sum of money played for is small. TO
play at any game for any sun of money
or other thing of value, however small,
comes within the statute prohibiting
gambling.
Near the close of the chapter on
gambling we find section 400 (of the
code Of South Dakota) which provides:
1t is the duty of all sheritfs, police
officers, constables. and prosecuting or
states attorneys inform against and
prosecute all persons whom they have
credible reason to believe are offenders
against the provisions of this chapter;
and any omission SO to do is punishable
fby a fine not exceeding five hundred
dollars"
We are prone to excuse our neglect
in some of these matters by referring
to public sentiment. But we cannot
neglect or refuse to prosecute simply
because public sentiment is opposed Il
the enforcement of laws, The public
sentiment must play upon the legisla.
ture, if it doesn't like the law, and no,
upon the states attorneys. Here is {
statement from the supreme court o
North Dakota: s.The duties of state.
attorneys are to be performed regard
less of public sentiment, and he VIII,
administers that office in Difference tt
sentiment opposed to the law is unfi
to hold that Office or to be an attorne,
at law"
The supreme court of Kansas is jus
about as emphatic in its expressions cl
that subject. For example: Afte
the utterance of his oath, he cannot 81
down with folded hands and refuse t
perform the duties imposed upon hin
solely upon the ground that the .senti
nnent of the community or county i
(which he resides is in opposition to th
enforcement of,the criminal laws of tn
state. Such action on his part woul
tend TO Increase lawlessness. !
Estate vs. Foster 80 Kan. Al.
In discussing q statute like cur sec
ton 400, the North Dakota court sal
Of the states attorney: ..He did nc
inform against such person nor prose
cute such person. His answer is tina
no n asked him to prosecute. Tn
statute contehplates that he shall max
. such q complaint himself.
The above are simply extracts fror
the address. He closed it By the fol
lowing: Whether it be in prosecutio