Evening star., 1936-03-08

diameter, 1S inches profile, at
S222.12la each; window silS feet
long, 5la inches thick, 12la bed, at
$4.75 each; door sills 6 feet long, 7
inches thick, 231a inches bed, at $ll.72
each; circular door heads 6 feet wide,
$l8 each; 9-inch string course, at "a
cents per Lueal foot, and other free
stone and workmanship at prices pro-
portionate to the above; iron work at
10 cents per pound, by J. Walker &c
M. Crawford"
ONE of the things not generally
" known is that the court house was
originally erected in part by money
obtained through legally authorized
lottery, and the story was told some
years ago Of a lawyer who could not
see the consistency of convicting his
client of selling lottery tickets IN a
building constructed through this
method Naturally this particular law
yer did not relish losing his case. for
no lawyer does. but 1t was the peculiar
situation that made him doubly sore.
and subsequently, In talking the mat.
ter over, he said:
"As I entered the court room met
an old gentleman who has been resi-.
dent of the city all his life. men
toned to him the kind of case I
had on hand, and he told me what I
had never heard before, though I have
since ascertained that it was fact
that the money which was used in
building the original court house. not
the enlargements, was raised by the
proceeds Of a lottery, which were very
fashionable in olden times as means
Of raising money to construct munich
pal and other buildings
But that was not the worst Of II.
It sounds bad enough to hear that a
temple Of justice was erected from
money secured in that kind Of q way.
but the fact was that the city repudi-
ated the prizes and defrauded the
holder of the capital prize; think it
was $1,000, though it may have been
greater sum. All the prizes were
not repudiated, though the capital.
that Is, the largest prize, was not paid.
The holder of the winning ticket
lived in Alexandria, and it appears,
though in this may not be exactly
correct, he obtained the ticket from
some other person, and when 1t was
found that it had drawn the prize
there was a suit about its ownership.
The holder sued the City Of Washing
ton and the city, in defense. pleaded
that there was fraud in the transfer
and that the fraud vitiated the claim
for the prize. BY this and other ways
the case was kept in court until both
claimants for the ticket dropped out OF
existence. The fact remained that
the prize. was never paid.
Under the circumstances it seemed
strange as we'll as peculiar that my
client was convicted Of q thing, q
crime, that was good enough to be
the means Of raising the money which
was used to erect the court house and
the room in which the trial took place.
OF course, laws have changed since
then, and what, like many other
things. was not q crime in olden days
Is q crime now."
HOWEVER strange this might seem,
- yet raising money by lotteries for
public purposes was common prsc.
tice in the early days Of the Republic,
and even here in nearby Georgetown
we find one being held as early as
1889, or at least number Of pron1-
inent Georgetown citizens were in
terested in it at that time.
In Washington the Blodgett Hotel
lottery seems to have been the first
and others soon followed, for the rais-
ing of funds for public school pur.
poses, for the Washington City canal.
for pentitentiary, and even an at
tempt was made, in 1918, to finance a
monument here to George Washing
ton, which, however, was not prcduc-
tive Of any good results.
This method Of raising funds for
free education Jared somewhat better
than did some Of the other schemes,
and by 1910, the amount raised for
the school fund had increased to
$4,000, but, as the Scripture says.
"For what Is man advantaged, II he
gain the whole world and lose himself" I"
Though no one was actually lost
yet when the Corporation Of Washing
ton, In consequence of the dishonesty
of the agent Of the lotteries, had to
pay the principal prize and other
obligations incurred, this method Of
obtaining money soon found it borrow
ing 5000, 900, and out Of this amount.
no doubt, the city had also to pay q
good fee for making its defense in
the case Of Chastain Clarke vs.. the
City Corporation Of Washington.
Clarke being the winner Of the prin-
cipal prize, and the case being carried
to the United States suprems Court,