188 U.S. 321 (1902)
Congress passed an act on March 2, 1895, entitled "An Act for the Suppression of Lottery Traffic through National and Interstate Commerce and the Postal Service, Subject to the Jurisdiction and Laws of the United States."1 C. F. Champion, also known as W. W. Ogden and W. F. Champion, along with Charles B. Park, faced indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Revised Statutes section 5440 for conspiring to commit an offense against the United States.2
The indictment charged the defendants with causing lottery tickets of the Pan-American Lottery Company to be carried from Dallas, Texas, to Fresno, California.3 Those tickets offered a capital prize of $32,000 and drew monthly at Asuncion, Paraguay.4 They were divided into whole, half, quarter, and eighth tickets at specified prices.5 The defendants allegedly deposited a box or package containing two whole tickets with Wells, Fargo & Company Express for transportation from Dallas to Fresno on or about February 1, 1899.6 The carrying occurred by an incorporated express company engaged in transporting freight and packages from one state to another.7
Champion was arrested at Chicago under a warrant based on a written complaint under oath charging the conspiracy.8 The arrest aimed to compel his appearance in the federal court in Texas to answer the indictment.9 The commissioner who issued the arrest warrant found probable cause to believe Champion guilty of the offense charged, ordered that he give bond for appearance for trial in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas, or, in default, be committed to jail.10
Champion sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.11 He complained that he was restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.12 The circuit court dismissed the writ.13 Champion appealed the order of dismissal to the Supreme Court.14
Whether the carriage of lottery tickets from one State to another by an express company constitutes commerce among the States?15
The word commerce is not defined in the Constitution. Undoubtedly the carrying from one State to another by independent carriers of ordinary commodities constitutes interstate commerce.16 But commerce among the several States includes something more than buying and selling; it denotes intercourse and the incidents of commercial intercourse.17 A lottery ticket is a subject of traffic and therefore a subject of commerce because on their face such tickets show that a large capital prize may be paid to the holder and the tickets were subjects of traffic, could be sold, and the holder was assured of possible payment.18
Yes. The established facts establish that Champion and his codefendants caused lottery tickets of the Pan-American Lottery Company to be carried from Dallas, Texas, to Fresno, California, by depositing a box or package containing two whole tickets with Wells, Fargo & Co. Express for transportation from one state to another.19 The indictment charged that the tickets offered a capital prize of $32,000 and were divided into whole, half, quarter, and eighth tickets at specified prices, rendering them subjects of traffic as the commissioner found probable cause for the conspiracy charge.20
The carriage of lottery tickets from one State to another by an express company constitutes commerce among the States.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Brewer, Shiras, And Peckham
Chief Justice Fuller dissented on the ground that lottery tickets are not articles of commerce.22 He reasoned that a lottery ticket purports to create contractual relations and to furnish the means of enforcing a contract right.23 This is similar to insurance policies, which the court has held are not interstate commerce.24 If a ticket is not an article of commerce, it cannot become such simply because placed in an envelope or box and transported by an express company.25
This view would transform every non-commercial paper into commerce by mere carriage.26 Under the majority's view, everything deposited with an express company for transportation would become an article of interstate commerce.27 This would deprive States of jurisdiction over subjects they have traditionally regulated.28
Whether Congress may prohibit the carriage of lottery tickets from one State to another under its power to regulate commerce among the States?29
If the end is legitimate and within the scope of the Constitution, and the means employed are appropriate and not prohibited by the Constitution, they are constitutional.30 Congress has plenary authority over interstate commerce and may prohibit the carriage of lottery tickets from State to State for the protection of the people of all the States because lottery traffic is injurious to public morals.31
Yes. The established facts show that the act of March 2, 1895, was applied to the conspiracy involving the carrying of the lottery tickets from Texas to California by an incorporated express company.32 Congress may adopt means to drive that traffic out of interstate commerce because the court has long recognized the evils of lotteries and the duty of government to suppress nuisances injurious to public morals.33 The act supplemented state policies protecting against lottery mischiefs without interfering with intrastate commerce.34
Congress may prohibit the carriage of lottery tickets from one State to another under its power to regulate commerce among the States.35
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Brewer, Shiras, And Peckham
Chief Justice Fuller dissented on the ground that the power of suppression belongs to the States, not to Congress.36 He reasoned that to hold otherwise would vest in Congress a general police power.37 This would defeat the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States.38
Prior acts forbidding transmission by the mails were sustained only under the postal power, which does not authorize prevention of transportation by other means.39 The purpose of Congress was the suppression of lotteries.40 This is a power originally belonging to the States and essentially exclusive.41 Therefore the act cannot stand without erasing State lines and concentrating power in the national government.42
Whether the act of March 2, 1895, is constitutional as applied to the interstate transportation of lottery tickets?43
Yes. The established facts indicate that Champion was arrested in Chicago under a warrant charging conspiracy to violate the act by causing tickets to be carried from Dallas to Fresno by an express company.46 The circuit court dismissed the habeas corpus petition after the commissioner found probable cause based on the indictment that detailed the specific deposit with Wells, Fargo & Co. Express on or about February 1, 1899.47
The act of March 2, 1895, is constitutional as applied to the interstate transportation of lottery tickets.48
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Brewer, Shiras, And Peckham
Chief Justice Fuller dissented on the ground that the act cannot stand if judged by the rule that if a law can only be valid as a regulation of commerce, it should on its face or by essential nature appear to be such a regulation.49 He concluded that the act in the particular under consideration is invalid.50 It extends the commerce power beyond its proper limits in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.51
The judgments below ought to be reversed.52 The marked question is whether Congress by prohibiting the carriage of lottery tickets from one State to another by means other than the mails has acted within the powers vested in it.53 The independence of the commercial power and the police power must be recognized to preserve the autonomy of the States.54