OCR Text |
Show CooiQiPDiing od the joetponptiient of : the lottery case be Nhw ortt U 0 hi tays ; Tbe Supreme Court lias postponed the henriofj uutil initutnn in order that the case may Ue detf riuincd by h full ttt-neh, but the hrteid tut- in, und a ireful rend- . inr of them in Ji"l very reu-111 inn tliotje tio deene tj ?t-t tume elt'eeti ve re-strniut re-strniut placed upuu tin.- legalized jiimb-lint;. jiimb-lint;. The argument 01 the Lottery law- j yen upon the cunstiiiilionul tpietliuns ' involved is very strong; that ot Agsiftltint ' Attorney-General .Maury for theCjovern-, theCjovern-, ment seems mui-b weaker than a really . capable Attorney-Gmeral would have made it. if the law lies with the riht it) the ease we must dej.id upon the 1 Court to discover the fact without much j help from the Attorney-General's oilice ' aB at present maimed. Ihie is scarcely just to the Attorney-General's Attorney-General's Oilice. .Mr. Maury baa made 1 the bent case that was possible for the' Government in this controversy, and has, 1 presumably, acted in full hnrmony with Attorney-General Miller, who haa been prevented by ilUieBa from preparing the brief in person. The trouble is thai the Government has not much of a case on the face of the papers. The measure which tbe Louisiana Lottery Company challenges before the Supreme Coiirtcan be defended only on tbe ground I moral expediency. Undoubtedly it is, as an abstract proposition, an invasion of the liberty of the press and an infringement of personal rights. Theoretically, if CongreGB may deny the use of the mails to newspapers containing lottery advertisements, adver-tisements, it may with equal propriety take similar action in the case of liquor advertisements, playing-card adveruae-menis, adveruae-menis, bucket-shop advertisements or any other which the party in the majority at the moment may choose to regard as immoral and pernicious. There is, indeed, no end to the mischief and oppression to which such a principle, prin-ciple, once established, may not lead. It is but natural, therefore that the Cous'i-tution Cous'i-tution should repudiate it in a general way, and that it should be destitute of support in precedent. We can readily see that the Attorney-General's oilice may have found it impossible to defend the law on any but moral, and to a certain cer-tain extent, sentimental grounds. As we Bee it, the question is not whether the Government can find any defense in laws already existent, but whether the Supreme Su-preme Court will, in view of the gravity of the case, originate a law to fit thiB particular emergency. The strictures on Mr. Maury strike ns as unjust. He has no case and he virtually confesses as much. What his brief means is that the Supreme Court should make a case for him. Washington (D. GO Crilic-ltecord. The New York World comments 8h the above as follows: Why did not the Attorney-General then discover the limitations of power and see that the bill was so framed as to be constitutional? The World urgently pointed out the necessity for such caution cau-tion at the time, and the reply uniformly uniform-ly was that the Attorney-General's ofhee had thoroughly considered that matter. How comes it, then, that tbe moment the law is questioned the best the Attorney-General can do is to confess that he has no case and pray the Court "to make a case for him '" |