Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-01

II has the essential elements and attri.
butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. It 10 . lottery within the dshn.
ition given In the dictionaries; IL 10 . lot.
tery according 10 the ordinary acceptation
Of that word IL 10 . lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of this
State In tho "Act to prohibit lotteries "
[Stat., 1873. 1861; Il u . lottery within the
meaning Of that word a used In the Con-
stitution.
seeond-Is the Act approved March 9.
1881. constitutionalf
This question is - clear and plain to
our minds a the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution 10 sus-
ceptible Of but one meaning. There is no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall be authorized by this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed" (Const.. Art. Nv. SEQ. "a. j
The Act In question attempts to author
ixs . lottery. and to allow the sale Of lot.
terry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitutiou 70 say that tho Act Il valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was BY its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from 10.
volving the State In system OF public
lotteries as Q 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-
gaging 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 to authorize private
parties to conduct 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 Constitution Of that State
identical with ours. II 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF
Judicial decision, but that IL is proper TO
examine them In case OF doubt as TO the
intention OF the trainers OF the CoDstitu.
tion. The remarks Of tho different mem
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are a. much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General a. 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. It was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases. where they have been
amended. IL has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York. TO which
reference has been made In tho 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 o,casion OF se-
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
mept itself. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1886. in
serted clause in the very first article OF
the new Constitution SEQ Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries aud the sale Of lot.
ttry tickets. II appeared to him
that this prohibition was one 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
ticle Of the Constitution OF l8i6, refer
red to by Mr.. Hslleck 10 a. follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of ths,Almshouse vs.
American Art Union, supra, 1t was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, 40 IL 10 here, that the Con-
stitution was only Intended 10 prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
aud in this country, aud that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, a. do counsel here, that "from
1903 to 1924 public lotteries we're 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 "publio lotteries for
pecunisry prizes a. . means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 10 In these
words: mo lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State. and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws TO prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets within this State except
in lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court OF Appeals In referring TO this
Constitution, which IL declared to be sub
stautislly the same - the Constitution OF
lsi8. said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must be held to embrace all lotteries.
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a. 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 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-
ht Of colleges, for the making OF roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitals, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied. but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. 1t WAS founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cosent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of