Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-24

Il has the essential elements and atIri.
butes Of . lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. Il u lottery within the dsan-
ition given In the dictionaries; IL n . let
tsry according 10 the Ordinary scoeptation
Of that word Il u . lottery within the
tsrms specified By The Legislature Of this
Ststs In the "Act 10 prohibit lsttsries :"
IStat., 1878, 1881; % 10 Q lottsry within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con.
stitution.
second ths Act approved March o,
1881. constitutionLf
This question Il - clear and plain 20
our minds a the one already decided. 1t
viii not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The Language Of the Constitutioa u aus.
osptible Of Bot one meaning. There 10 NO
room for oonstruedon. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall b authorised By this
ststs, nor shall the sale Of lottery tietss
b allowed" (Const.. Art. ~. Seo. -.
Ths Act In qaestion attempts % suthor'
iss lottery. and 70 allow the sale OF lot
tery tickets In this Ststs In direct viola
ton of the plain letter and spirit o. this
provision OF the Consultation. II would
30 psrvsrsion of the lsnGuags OF the Con-
sttution 70 40 tkat ~ Ast 10 valid.
Respondent, hnWssF. contend that the
Constitution doss not prohibit private
lotteries, and was BY its trainers intended
only to prevent tho Legislature from In.
yolving the State In . systsm Of public
lottsries a means OF raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was only intended - Limitation OF power
TO prevent the State. ~ . State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
Of raising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Hence they claim that the
State has the right 10 authorize private
parties to conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In the informa'
ton.
In support Of this position they refer TO
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of .
provision In the Constitution OF that State
Identical with ours. II 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of
judicial decision, but that IL 10 proper to
examine them In case OF doubt ss TO the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton. The remarks Of the different mem
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are ~ much In
favor Of the position taken BY the Attorney
General ~ they are In favor Of the respon-
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition OF New York was referred TO 10
discussing the provision that was adopted
in California. Mr.. Halleck. who was In
favor Of the adoption OF the lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said: "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tions you will And'this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases. where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Consultation Of New York. TO which
reference has been made In the course OF
debate, NO prohibition WAS inserted.
Many gentlemen present would remember
the famous case Of Yates and Mcintyre.
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin. but was the occasion OF Sc
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 20 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. in 1886. 10.
serted . clause In the very frst article OF
the new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries aud the sale OF lot.
tery tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition was one Of the best
that could be inserted In the artiols limit.
Ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section of Ar.
ticls OF the Constitution OF l8i6. refer
red 70 by Mr.. Halleck 10 - follows "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
- .uv =. L. ~ Inllarv tiokata allouad With.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse W.
American Art Union. supra. 10 was con.
tended by Charles 0'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, - IL 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 70 prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both in England
and in this country, and that the prohibi.
tious Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, a. do counsel hero, that "from
l709 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred TO the debates Of the Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1871. for the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the eontempla.
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1871 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and The Legis:.
laturs shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
All lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 70 this
Constitution. which IL declared 70 be SUB.
stantially the same - the Consultation OF
isi6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must be held 70 embrace al lotteries,
unlsss there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding u In
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cupisry prizes - . means Of raising rev.
epus were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries hare never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there IL therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended 10 be limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
q mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene'
az Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendabls aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but. at that particular mode Of seeon.
plishipg such objeots. II Was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
oonseq uent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalsnced 10 tho
scor.o.ta snv good likelv IN reanlt from