Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-20

WV ~ aAAoSH "
tion OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
be Q perversion Of the language OF the Con-
stitution 70 say that the Act IL valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by is trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the State In . system Of public
lotteries as . 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. a. Q State, from en-.
gazing In public lotteries for tho 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 tho informa-
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
the debates OF the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of 0
provision In the Constitution Of that State
identical with ours. Il 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision, but that Il Ii proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt as 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 st issue. They are ss much In
favor Of the position takon 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.. Halleok, 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. II 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 Now 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 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In l8i6. In.
serted 0 clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution tsee Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and tho sale OF lot.
terry tickets. It appeared TO him -
that this prohibition was n OF the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the LeRislaturo."
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I Of tho Constitution Of 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is q follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors OF the Almshouse Va.
American Art Union, supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles 0'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL Is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to 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.
lions Of tho Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to 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 the debates OF the Consti.
tutional Convention OF 1871, for the pur-
pose Of showing that " public lotteries for
p~ecuniary prizes 10 . 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 the Logis.
lature shall pass laws 70 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 DO sub
stantially the Same - tho Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held 10 embrace all lotteries,
unless thore be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In Q
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes % Q 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 Is therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended to be limited 10 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 tho bene.
at Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges, for the improve
mont Of ferries, for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendablo aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ct the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but u 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
IL. Tho promotion Of tho fne arts is un-
doubtedly o c~ommendable object, but tho
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground. =
The intention Of the trainers Of tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries a.
had Of any time previously been author.
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
lature to pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, to put an end to all
6ucn ulbtrlDuLOub VI money VI BOOub W
lot or chance - had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho name OF
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" we're inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries as means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly IN.
tsnAble. No authority has been produced
In its support and we are satisfed that
mono can be found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence Is a. important
a. the first.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall be authorized by this State"
to only limit the Legislative power to pub
lilo lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by tho 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 auv nurDnaa