The Ottawa Free Trader

On the 1st day of June next we propose, on account of the generous support we have received from our patrons of this paper, to present our subscribers a present of a lot in the prosperous city of Streator. We wish the Free Press and the Ottawa FREE TRADER to understand that there is no raffle in this gift: that there is no gambling scheme connected with the giving of our subscribers a lot. It is a free gift and we would make the present on the 1st day of January but for the fact that a large number of our industrious citizens among the homeless have requested that the grand prize of a lot shall not be presented until all have had an opportunity to behold the prize.—Streator Independent-Times.

That is substantially what Rose said. He, too, is waiting for "all to have an opportunity" to see his prize team-"behold the prize!" before he raffles it off, we suppose, although he agreed with his ticket-buyers that he would raffle it off last August, after several months' advertising of the team.

If this "present of a lot" is not a lottery, why wait until next June to give it away? Get out a band and lead all who want to see it around to it and show it to them and give it away. Tell the truth, now—are you not waiting until next June so that as much time as possible will elapse in which to get subscribers to your paper by this bait of a lot, to some one of whom the lot is to be given? Isn't your object that of getting men to take your paper in the hope, in the breast of each one of them, that he will get the lot? You know it is. You know that you are not going to give away this lot without expecting some substantial return for it.

You, sir, as a reputable business man, and above all, as a reputable newspaper man, directing and moulding the morals of a community, ought to be above such methods, and set the example of a compliance with the laws of your state, whether you believe in them or not. You are defying them, trusting to luck that no one will complain of you to the grand jury for violating that law.

How are you going to give this lot away? You say you have 1,200 subscribers. Are you going to give each an undivided one-twelve-hundredth interest? You are going to give it to the people of Streator. Are you going to give each person in Streator an undivided one-nine-thousandth interest in that lot? If you want to show your philanthropy, why don't you sell the lot and give the money to the poor—to the Ladies' Library Association—to some regularly organized charity? Why wait until June? Do it now when the poor need woolens, meat and fuel?

As a matter of fact, you mean to make that lot a bait to catch subscribers, and will (we doubt not) give it to the lucky man who happens to hold the lucky number in your raffle for the lot.

We believe you are honest enough to do as you agree, and "give away" the lot. That cannot be said of "your friend" Rose, for he did not. He took men's money just as you mean to do; but he broke his agreement and still holds the team—or the mortgage does.

If you want to make special claim to being a "friend" of such men, you are welcome; but in that case you must not object and get mad and rip and tear around, and cry out, "Oh, you're jealous," if men say, "Well, there's two of a kind."

You are violating the laws of your state by a raffle of this kind—call it gift, prize, or what you will. Rose did the same thing: but he supplemented his violation of the law by a willful violation of faith with his ticket-holders—the dupes who trusted in his promises. You may take such men to your ample bosom and slobber over them as "our friend Rose," but you can't make a reputable business man of him or yourself by so doing.

The FREE TRADER has no War With the Ind.-Times, it is simply entering a protest at the open violation of the lottery act as practiced by newspaper men who should not hold the law of the state in open defiance. And the FREE TRADER appeals to honorable men in the profession to stand by this position. No newspaper that openly, as in these cases, defies the law is entitled to respect or support; and the men and women who are raising sons whom they hope one day to see occupying positions as honorable and honest business men can afford to let those violations of the law pass unrebuked, much less countenance the violators by encouragement and support.

If the Louisiana Lottery is a swindle—and the United States government has said that it is, notwithstanding it promptly pays its prizes in cash—then all lotteries are swindles, and should be discountenanced by all reputable business men, for the principle involved is the same, be the prizes large or small—$50,000 in cash, a team of horses or a town lot.