Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-08-08


ize . lottery, and to allow tho sale OF lot
tory tickets In this State In direct viola-
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of the Constitution. II would
DO . perversion Of the language Of the Con-
sttution 10 say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents. however, contend that tho
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by it, trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the State in . system OF public
lotteries ~ . means Of raising money Tor
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 TO authorize private
parties 70 conduct and carry on Q lottery
Of the character specified In the Informs
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 % TO the
intention OF the trainers Of the Constttu.
ton. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question ct issue. They are as much In
favor Of tho position taken BY the Attorney
General IS they are In favor Of the respon-
dents. The debates show that the Consti.
A-.A- - N.- Veal a. .-H...a1 60 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 oourso OF his argument,
said : "In nearly all the new Constitu.
lions you will find this clause 1t was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, whore they have been
amended. IL has boon 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 Be-
rious embarrassment 10 the State Govern
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estsb.
llshed the evils Of the lottery systom that
the Convention OF New York, 10 1886, In.
serted . clause In the very FIRST article Of
the new Constitution [seo Section l0l
\ prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. II appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was one Of the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing tho powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
tlcle I OF the Constitution OF i846. refer.
| red to by Mr.. Halleck 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 the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, IL was CON.
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, as 10 10 here, that the Con-
~stitution was only intended 10 prevent tho
mischievous practice Of raising Q revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that tho prohibi.
tons 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 were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred TO the debates OF the Consti.
tutionai Convention Of 1871, for tho pur.
pose OF showing that 7" public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. . means OF raising
revenue we're alone within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1891 is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and the Logis.
lsture 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 1t declared TO be sub
stantislly the same ss the Constitution OF
1916, 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 1t In .
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pe-
| cuniary prizes % . 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 tho 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-
| at Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
tho building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
| pitsls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the oh.
jects for which lotteries had Leon author.
lied, but at that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
tho 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 overbalAnced In the
aggregate any good likely TO result from
1t. The promotion Of the fine arts 10 IN.
doubtedly Q commondable object, but the
prohibition contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was 70 forbid tho
future granting OF any such lotteries -
had ct any time previously been author.
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis-
laturs TO pass laws TO prevent tho sale Of
all lottery tickets, TO put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under the name Of
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words by this
State" were inserted for the purpose OF
preventing the Legislature from authorize
INK public lotteries Is Q means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. 10 wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and We are satisfied that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence 10 Is important
as the first.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized BY this STATE"
to only limit the legislative power 70 pub
lie lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by tho State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not hsvo 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 It was not intended that any
nA-A-