19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
The present case arises from proceedings in the Quarterly Session Court for the Borough of Norfolk, in the Commonwealth of Virginia.1 The defendants there set up a defence under an act of Congress authorizing the Corporation of Washington to conduct lotteries.2 The Norfolk court overruled that defence.3 A writ of error was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States following an earlier decision denying a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.4
The act in question provides that the Corporation shall have full power to authorize the drawing of lotteries for effecting any important improvement in the City.5 The ordinary funds or revenue thereof will not accomplish the improvement.6 The sum to be raised in each year shall not exceed ten thousand dollars.7 The object shall be submitted to and approved by the President of the United States.8
In the course of the argument, counsel read resolutions adopted by the Virginia legislature in January 1810.9 Those resolutions, passed unanimously by both the Senate and the House of Delegates, disapproved a proposed amendment to the Constitution for the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the state and federal judiciary.10 The resolutions instead affirmed the Supreme Court as the proper tribunal for such disputes and requested transmission of the resolutions to Congress and other states.11
Whether the act of Congress purports to authorize the Corporation to force the sale of these lottery tickets in States where such sales may be prohibited by law?12
Corporate powers granted by an incorporating act are limited by the subject to the locality for which they are created.13 This limitation applies unless the language of the act clearly indicates an intention to give them binding efficacy beyond those limits.14 Such an intention is especially required when the construction would allow interference with state penal laws.15
No. The act contains no expression which looks beyond the limits of the City.16
The powers granted are all of them local in their nature.17 All of them such as would, in the common course of things, if not necessarily, be exercised within the city.18 The subject on which Congress was employed when framing this act was a local subject.19
The act authorizes the drawing of lotteries for effecting any important improvement in the City.20 The ordinary funds or revenue thereof will not accomplish the improvement. The sum to be raised in each year shall not exceed ten thousand dollars. The object shall be submitted to and approved by the President of the United States. The act contains no provision for sales outside the City or for forcing sales in other states.21
The Norfolk court overruled the defence set up under the act of Congress.22 A writ of error was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States following an earlier decision denying a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirms the judgment because the act does not authorize sales in Virginia where prohibited.23
The act of Congress does not purport to authorize the Corporation to force the sale of lottery tickets in states where such sales may be prohibited by law.24
Whether the law is constitutional?25
No. The first question having been answered in the negative, it becomes unnecessary to consider the second question of constitutionality.28
The writ of error followed an earlier denial of a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.29 The present decision turns solely on the construction of the act without reaching questions of congressional power.30
It is unnecessary to decide the constitutionality of the law.31