Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-30

ise . lottery. and 10 allow the sals Of lot.
tery Tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of the Consultation. Il would
DO . perversion Of the language OF the Con.
stitution 70 say that the Act u valid.
Respondents. however, contend that the
Constitution "doss mot prohibit private
lotteries, and wss BY IL trainers intended
only 70 prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the State In . system OF public
lotteries - . means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" OF, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
wss only intended - Q limitation Of power
10 prevent the State. - . Btats, from sn-
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 70 oonduot and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In the informs-
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven.
ton In California upon the adoption Of .
provision In the Consultation OF that State
Identical with ours. II II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
Judicial decision, bat that II 10 proper 70
examine them In case Of doubt q 70 the
Intention OF the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton. Tho remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question ut 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 10 In
discussing tho provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Hallsok, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In tho course Of his argument,
said /: "In nearly all the new Constitu.
lions you will find this CLAUSE. II was not
contained In the old Consultation. but 10
most GASES, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Constitution OF New York, 70 which
reference has been made In the our 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 %.
rious embarrassment 70 tho State Govern.
ment itssli. Tho result q clearly. estsb-
iished tho evils Of the lottery systsm that
the Convention Of New York. In 1886, in.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
tho new Consultation tseo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was OF the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
Ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticls I OF the Constitution Of l846. refer.
red 10 by Mr.. Hslleck Is - follow: ''Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse W.
American Art Union. supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles o'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, "a IL Ia here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mlschievous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
aud In this country, and that the prohibi.
tions OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact. ~ do counsel bore, that "from
1903 TO 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied st every session OF Parliament" He
also referred 70 the debates Of tho 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 contempla-
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1871 IL In these
words: "No lottery shall hsreafter DO
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lsturs shall pass laws 70 prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets within this 6tats except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which 10 declared 70 DO sub
stantially the same - the Constitution Of
1915, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held 70 embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In .
more limited sense. II WA urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cunisry prizes As means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev
enue, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended TO DO limited TO lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
. mischief which did not exist, and tolsr.
ating that which did. Lotteries had bean
authorized BY the Legislature for the b~ns.
at 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 oommendabls and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed 1t the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. 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
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly oyerbslsnosd In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. The promotion Of tho ane arts 10 nm
doubtedly . commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In it,
favor on that ground. .
The intention Of the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly Wal 10 forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries -
had at any time previously been suthor.
lied by law. and BY requiring the Legis.
lsture TO pass laws 70 prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets, 10 put An end, TO all
such distributions Of money or goods By
lot or chance ~ had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under the name Of
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" we're inserted for the purpose OF
preventing tho Legislature from suthoris
ing public lotteries ssa means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. 10 wholly IN.
tensble. No authority has been produced
In It, support and We are satished that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
~stitution the last sentence II - important
a. the hrst.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
intsndsd BY the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall be authorized BY this State"
To only limit the Legislative power 10 pub
lilo lotteries. conducted and managed solsly
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding SEN.
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts be allowed" These words clearly
.kr. Sksk a. 80 ,.A t,A~uS.A kb.N ans