Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-12

tion Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of the Constitution. II would
DO . perversion Of tho language Of the Con-
stitution 10 say that the Act IL valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
volving the State In . system OF public
lotteries IS . means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was only intended ~ Q Limitation Of power
TO prevent the State. a. Q State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Hence they claim that tho
State has tho right to 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 II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision, but that Il 10 proper 10
examine them In case Of doubt a. to the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
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 In
discussing the provision that was adopted
in California. Mr.. Hslleck, 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-
tons you will find this clause. It was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, u has been introduced. In the
old Constitution 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 tho occasion OF Sc
rious embarrassment to the State Govorn-
ment itself. The result 10 clearly estab-
lished tho evils OF the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York, In l8iG. in.
serted o clause In the very first article Of
tho new Constitution [soe Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared to him y
that this prohibition was one Of the best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing tho powers Of the legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar.
ticle I OF the Constitution Of 1916, refer
red 10 by Mr.. Halleck is as follows "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with
In this State"
In tho Governors OF tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, II was con.
tended by Charles 0'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as IL 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 10 prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising 0 revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that tho prohibi.
tions OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, as do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to tho debates Of the Consti-
tutional Convention OF 1921, for the pur-
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes as Q means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State. and tho Legis.
lature shall pass laws to prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
Tho Court OF Appeals In referring TO this
Constitution, which II declared to DO sub
stantially the Same as the Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts
factory reason for understanding IL In Q
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
tho argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes as . means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
OF tho trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have mover been created within
this State for the purpose OF general rev.
enue, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was In.
tended to DO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
o mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene-
at OF colleges, for the making OF roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment OF ferries. for tho erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within tho prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at tho 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
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
Ii. Tho promotion Of tho fino arts Is un-
doubtedly o commendable object, but the
prohibition contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground.
Tho intention OF the trainers Of tho Con-
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid the
future granting OF any such lotteries as
had ct any timo previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
lsture TO pass laws 10 prevent tho salo OF
all lottery tickets, to put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance rs had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho namo OF
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authoriz'
ing public lotteries as o means Of raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, Is wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and wa arc satisfied that
mono can be found.
In constituting this provision OF tho Con-
stitution tho last sentence 70 ss important
as the first.
II tho trainers OF tho Constitution had
intended by tho use Of tho words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power TO pub
lilo lotteries, conducted and managed solely
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 DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized by this State
for anv pnrnoae