prize of a value superior to the amount or value of that which he risks."-American and English Encyclopedia of Law. "Any scheme whereby one, in paying money or other valuable thing to another, becomes entitled to receive from him such return in value, or nothing, as some formula of chance may determine."-Bishop on Statutory Crimes, Section 952. "Lottery, in its popular acceptation, is a distribution of prizes by lot or chance; and when the chances are sold and the distribution of prizes determined by lot, this constitutes a lottery."-Buck vs. State, 62 Ala., 432; Solomon vs. State, 62 Ala., 83. "The generally accepted definition of a lottery is, that it is a scheme for the distribution of prizes for the obtaining of money or goods by chance."-People vs. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137. "Any device whereby money or any other thing is to be paid or delivered on the happening of any event or contingency in the nature of a lottery, is a lottery ticket."— Smith vs. State, 68 Md., 170; Bayland vs. State, 69 Md., 170. "A lottery is a scheme, device, or game of hazard, whereby, for a smaller sum of money or other thing of value, the person dealing therein, by chance or hazard or contingency, may or may not get money or other thing of value, of greater or less value, or in some cases of no value at all, from the owners or managers of such lottery."-State vs. Lumsden, 89 N. C., 572. "Both by reason and authority, a lottery is a game-a game of chance."-Korten vs. Seney, 68 N. W., 824. "Whatever may be the name or character of the machine or scheme, if in its use a consideration is paid, and there is gambling, the hazarding of small amounts to win larger, the result of winning or losing to be determined by chance, in which neither the will nor skill of man co-operates to influence the result, it is a determination by lot."-Loiseau vs. State, 22 Southern Rep., 138. It must also be constantly borne in mind that a scheme. may come within the meaning of the lot or chance or lottery clause of the above acts, even though every investor secures something; that is to say, even though there be no blanks. United States vs. Horner, cited supra. So in Seidenbender vs. Charles, 4 Serg. and Rawle, 151 (8 Am. Dec., 682), and Dunn vs. State, 40 Illinois, 465. This class of cases covers and inhibits the so-called land scheme, where each adventurer secures a lot of land, but the lots are of unequal value, yet each being secured for the same price. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said upon this point: "If it be said that in this case there are no blanks, we answer that no material difference arises from that circumstance. Some of the most fraudulent lotteries ever known have been those in which there were no blanks. They are an imposition on the folly of mankind; for of what importance is it if a man who pays a considerable sum for a ticket has a prize of very little value." So in the Dunn case, cited supra, the Supreme Court of Illinois said, the case showing that prizes in that scheme ranged in value from a cheap trinket to a grand piano: "If it differs from ordinary lotteries, the difference is chiefly in the fact that it is more artfully contrived to impose upon the ignorant and credulous, and is, therefore, more thoroughly dishonest and injurious to society." § 59a. Illustrative Cases.-A loan company which has a scheme for filing applications and numbering for the determination of who shall be entitled to a loan, but which scheme is an unfair device to save the making of loans, is a violation. U. S. vs. Purvis, 195 Federal, 618. Prizes in boxes of tobacco is a violation of this lottery statute. U. S. vs. One Box, 190 Federal, 731. The plotting of land and the increasing of the value of some lots arbitrarily is a violation of this lottery statute. U. S. vs. Ridgway, 199 Federal, 287. § 60. Land Schemes.-One of the most universal violations and attempts to violate the lottery statute are the various and sundry schemes for the sale and distribution of town-lot additions. A tract of land will be secured contiguous to some city or town, the same will be plotted into lots, and upon one or two of such lots a building will be erected, and then the entire addition put on the market at a uniform price per lot, there being some sort of an arrangement whereby the investors are to determine which one shall secure the important lot. This identical scheme has been denounced by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Seidenbender vs. Charles case, cited supra. In that case the evidence showed that a party possessed of a tract of land on the banks of a river divided it into town lots, which he sold for three hundred thirty dollars each, the specific lot to be awarded to each purchaser by lot. The lots were of unequal value. The one on which the house was erected was valued at eleven thousand dollars; another having a barn on it was valued at three thousand dollars, and two of the others had wooden buildings thereon. While the lots abutting on the river were peculiarly valuable, the great mass which laid back from the river, and which were unimproved, bore no proportion to the price at which the tracts were sold. This scheme was denominated a lottery. Throughout the country this and similar decisions are being avoided by having the purchasers determine among themselves how the lots shall be divided, in which division. there will be no drawing; as, for instance, a community of trustees will be appointed, and these trustees will pretend to auction the lots. It is thought, however, that all such schemes are really within the pale of the law, because the real incentive moving toward the purchaser in all these cases is the thought that he may secure the valuable lot. 61. Issuing of Stock.-The Post-office Department and its force of inspectors, and particularly the Assistant Attorney General for that Department, has been most efficient in rendering service to the general public by declaring fraudulent a great many so-called stock concerns, insurance companies, building and loan associations, tontine policy corporations, that pretend to issue stock or certificates, or to loan money at some future date to such customers as would pay in small installments at short and stated periods. By applying figures and reasons to the respective plans of these fraudulent concerns, these officers of the people determined that it was impossible for the concerns to carry out the contracts made, and when such conclusion has been reached, a fraud order has followed under the statute cited supra, and ofttimes the perpetrators have been convicted. Such a scheme was denounced and a conviction followed in the case cited at page 477 of the 156 Federal Reporter, Fitzsimmons vs. United States. That was a scheme by which certificates were issued by a corporation on each of which the holder agreed to pay one dollar per week, subject to forfeiture for non-payment, and about 75 per cent of which payments were paid into a "mutual benefit credit fund" until all certificates prior in date had matured and been cancelled, when his own certificate should mature, and he should be paid from such fund a sum of two dollars for each week such certificate had been in force, provided there were in such fund the amount, which was not to exceed the sum of one hundred sixty dollars. § 62. Other Cases. Other cases bearing directly and indirectly upon the statute under discussion, by reason of their having arisen under some of the preceding statutes, are the following: United States vs. Irvine, 56 Federal, 375. United States vs. Rosenblum, 121 Federal, 180. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S., 727. In re Rapier, 143 U. S., 110. Horner vs. United States, 143 U. S., 570, and 147 U. S., 449. McDonald vs. U. S., 171 U. S., 689; also 87 Federal, 324. U. S. vs. McCrory, 175 Federal, 802, holds incidental use of mails insufficient. $ 63. Postmasters Not to Be Lottery Agents.Section 214 makes it an offense punishable by not more than one hundred dollars fine, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for any postmaster or other person employed in the postal service, to act as an agent for any lottery, or under color of purchase or otherwise to vend lottery tickets, or to knowingly send the same by mail, or to deliver any letter or package or postal card or circular or pamphlet advertising any lottery, etc., which is a substantial re-enactment of the old Section 3851 of the Revised Statutes, the new section being somewhat broader and cov ering more territory. In Louisiana lottery cases, 20 Federal, 628, the Court held that the word "send" as used in the old section, signifies forwarding in the mail through the officers of the government. § 64. False Returns to Increase Compensation.— Section 3855 of the old statutes provided the basis for fixing the compensation and salary of postmasters of the fourth class. That statute was subsequently amended in some detail by the Act shown at page 186 of the First Volume of the Supplement, and later by the Act shown at page 417 of the First Volume of the Supplement, and still later by the Act shown at page 419 of the First Volume of the Supplement, and still later by Section 2 of the Act shown at page 602 of the 22 Statute at Large. The pay of officers of this class is graded in this last act upon the amount of stamps canceled. For instance, on the first fifty dollars or less per quarter, 100 per cent; on the next one hundred dollars or less per quarter, 60 per cent; on the next two hundred dollars or less per quarter, 50 per cent; and on all the balance 40 per cent, the same to be ascertained and allowed by the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post-office Department in the settlement of the accounts of such postmasters, upon their sworn quarterly returns. To guarantee fidelity in these returns and these reports, Congress enacted Section 1 of the 20 St. L., page 141, which provided a punishment for any false return made by a postmaster to the Auditor for the purpose of fraudulently increasing his compensation. This includes what has been technically termed "false cancellation;" and while it is one of the most difficult offenses to prove in the postal service, such proof has repeatedly been made by the placing of proper watches and counts upon the outgoing mail matter from the office, and by the estimating of the sale of stamps, computing of box rents, drop letters, etc. Section 206 of the new statute increases the penalty and is much more comprehensive than the old statute, and reads as follows: "Whoever, being a postmaster or other person employed in any branch of the postal service, shall make, or assist in making, or cause to be made a false return, statement, or account to any officer of the United States, or shall make, as |