THE PEERLESS SHOE COMPANY.

The plan of the Peerless Shoe Company, of Bessemer, Ala., is thus stated on its tickets:

"Don't fail to give first and second choice.

"25 cents.

TICKET A.

Book No. 4444

66 THE PEERLESS SHOE CO.'s $4 SHOE-HOW TO OBTAIN A PAIR FOR 25

CENTS.

"Return this ticket to the Peerless Shoe Company, Bessemer, Ala., with $1, for which we will issue you a book containing four tickets. Sell these four tickets for 25 cents each, thereby getting your $1 back. Each person to whom you sell a ticket sends or brings it to us with $1, for which we in turn issue a book of four tickets for themselves. When each of the four tickets have been sent to us in this way, you can readily see we will have received $4, and you will then be entitled to a pair of Peerless shoes in patent leather, willow calf, titan calf, box calf, calf-skin, Russia tan, and black and tan vici kid, equal to many $5 shoes on the market, and they cost you but 25 cents.

"Write name and address of the owner of the book here (not party you sell to):

"Name:

"Address:

"Please write plainly and fill out each ticket.

"When you sell the tickets see that they are sent to us promptly.

"(See other side.)"

"PEERLESS SHOE COMPANY, 1921 Second avenue, Bessemer, Ala.

On the reverse side is this:

“When sending for coupon book use this blank.

"PEERLESS SHOE COMPANY,

"1921 Second avenue, Bessemer, Ala.

"DEAR SIR: Please find inclosed $1, for which send me

coupon book of four tickets.

"Name:
"Address:

"If a ticket has been lost, we will send duplicate free of charge, upon condition that you give number of same.

"If you have sold two tickets and they have been cashed in to us, and you can not sell balance, return same to us and we will redeem them at 25 cents each, so you will not be out anything. One of these tickets with $1 must be sent to us before we will issue a book.

"Send all money by post-office money order, express money order, or registered letter. Do not send stamps, or money in envelopes, without registering."

Except as to the provision in the last case considered, that the person receiving the four coupons may himself turn in such as he can not sell, with the same result as if so done by the purchaser, this case is similar, in its general features to those already considered here; and substantially what has been said may, with that exception, be said of this case. For the reasons stated in the case last considered above, I do not hold that this case is of the class of cases referred to in section 3894 (1 Supplement Revised Statutes, 803). There is nothing in this or either of the other cases which appears to be anything more than the holding out of a legitimate inducement to others to assist in selling what the promoter of the scheme has for sale. That inducement is the promise of what is offered if the persons succeed in making a sale and the price is returned. And, which is important upon the question of lot or chance, in each case, success in thus selling is so within ordinary ability and exertion, business expectation and probability as to remove it from the range of mere chance.

When one purchases from the seller a coupon or ticket, for the sole purpose of its being turned in for the seller's benefit, and which is the sole purpose of the whole transaction, there is at least an implied promise that the purchaser will turn it in, as expected, and thus enable the seller to realize the only purpose and benefit of the sale. And whether the purchaser will keep his promise is not, in any proper sense, a matter of chance, but depends upon and is governed by the same considerations which affect other executory business transactions.

THE CASE OF HENRY MURRAY.

The plan adopted by Henry Murray, of Mitchell, Ind., is thus stated in the coupons of the books issued by him:

HOW TO GET A $5 RUG, SIZE 36 BY 72 INCHES, FOR 30 CENTS. "Please find inclosed 90 cents, for which send me coupon book of four tickets.

"Name:
"Address:

"Purchase a coupon from a coupon holder for 20 cents; return the coupon to me, 90 cents inclosed, for which I will issue a book of four coupons. Sell the four coupons for 20 cents each, thereby getting in return 80 cents of your money. Each of those to whom you sell a coupon send it to me, with 90 cents, and I will issue a book of four coupons to each of them. When the four coupons have been cashed in to me, you can readily see that I have received $3.60, and you are entitled to the rug, which has cost you only 30 cents.

"Remittance must be made by post-office money order, express order, or registered letter only.

"Name of book owner:

-No. 26675. Address:

"HENRY MURRAY,

"Dealer in Furniture and Carpets, Mitchell, Ind. "SPECIAL NOTICE. -If you have sold one coupon and it is cashed in, and you can not sell the balance, return same to me and I will send you a 90-cent rug (good size); if you sell two coupons and they are cashed in, you are entitled to a $2.50 Moquette rug (size 28 by 64), which costs you 50 cents. If you fail to sell a coupon you are not entitled to anything. One of these coupons, with 90 cents, must be sent to me before a book will be issued.

"Give number of coupon when writing."

In addition to what thus appears, I am informed by the attorney of Mr. Murray, at a hearing given him in this case, that, though the coupons do not expressly so state, yet Mr. Murray's practice is to allow anyone who can not sell the coupons he has received, to himself return them with the

money and receive the rug offered, the same as if thus returned by purchaser. This would make the case similar to that of the Parisian Skirt Company. Nothing need be said of this case beyond what has been already said of the others. I do not think that either of these four cases can be called a "lottery, so-called gift concert, or other similar enterprise offering prizes dependent upon lot or chance." On the contrary, as already said, the getting or not getting that which is offered, being dependent upon success in selling tickets or coupons, and that, in turn, being within the range of ordinary ability and exertion, ordinary business expectation and probability, it can not well be said that the getting of what is thus offered depends upon lot or chance.

Respectfully,

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL.

JOHN W. GRIGGS.

IMMIGRATION LAWS-REMISSION OF FINES.

The act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1084), confers no authority upon the Secretary of the Treasury to remit fines imposed on a vessel or her master for allowing the escape of alien immigrants whose deportation has been ordered.

Neither is the power of remission in such cases conferred by section 5294, Revised Statutes, as amended March 2, 1896 (30 Stat., 39). The fact that it might be equitable or desirable to include in the power of remission, under existing laws relative to this power, new cases not contemplated when those laws were adopted, can not overcome and enlarge the defined and restricted language and application of the law. To constitute a violation of the act of March 3, 1891, there must be a refusal on the part of the master to receive back on board his vessel such aliens, or a neglect to detain them thereon, or a refusal or neglect to return them to the port from which they came. But where the master has taken every precaution to detain in safe custody and to prevent an escape, and yet in some real and unforeseen emergency an escape has occurred, there is no such neglect as the act contemplates. In such case no fine has been incurred, and therefore none can be imposed.

The Secretary has authority to return a deposit to cover a fine which might be due, but which turns out not to have been incurred. Such return would not be a remission of a fine or penalty, but the restitution of an amount to which the Government was never justly entitled. The general doctrine expressed in the opinion of February 3, 1894 (20 Opin., 705), concurred in.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

October 5, 1900.

SIR: I have the honor to reply herewith to your letter of September 26, by which you inform me, through a letter of the collector of customs at the port of New Orleans, the statement of facts in which I understand you adopt substantially as your own, that you have received an application on behalf of the French steamship Olbia for remission of fines to which that vessel or her master is presumably liable under section 10 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1086), for allowing the escape of three alien immigrants whose deportation had been duly ordered. And thereupon you ask for my opinion regarding your authority to remit these fines in view of the various statutes and of the opinion of my predecessor, which you cite.

I may state briefly the facts leading up to this application, as they are presented to me.

It appears that these immigrants were on board the Olbia at New Orleans under the vigilant guard of the vessel's officers and of two detectives employed by them for this purpose, one of the immigrants being detained on board awaiting or expecting his release, and the other two being held under an order of return to a foreign port. Because of excessive heat, which prevented confinement of the immigrants between or below decks, and because of the confusion of loading and coaling just previous to the vessel's clearance, they escaped by swimming and the aid of confederates, and were concealed, so that, although pursued from the ship, they have not been retaken. It is the opinion of the collector of customs that the master and agents of the vessel took every precaution consistent with humanity and law to prevent the escape of the rejected immigrants. The agent for the vessel deposited, under protest, to cover the cases of the three immigrants, the sum of $900, and the matter is now presented to your executive discretion for the return in whole or the mitigation of the fine imposed by the act of 1891. That act, section 10, provides that

"All aliens who may unlawfully come into the United States shall, if practicable, be immediately sent back on the