Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-30

ton Of the plain lettor and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
be Q perversion Of tho language Of tho Con-
stitution to say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
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 as o means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. 0 Limitation Of power
TO prevent the State. a. . State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for tho purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
Of tho State. Honce they claim that tho
State has the right 10 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 0
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 as TO the
intention Of tho Trainers Of the Constitu.
tion. The remarks Of the 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 q they are In favor OF the respon-
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred 10 In
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-
lions you will Hnd this clause. It was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, II 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 So
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 18iG, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. II appeared to him
that this prohibition was n Of the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle l OF tho Constitution Of 1916, refer
red to 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, It was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as It is here. that the Con-
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mlschievous practice Of raising o revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
tons OF tho Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to tho fact, as do counsel hero, that ''from
1909 to 1894 public lotteries were author.
ized at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred 10 the debates OF tho Consti'
tutional Convention Of 1921. for the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. 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 be
authorized In this State, and tho Legis.
lature shall pass laws TO prevent the sale OF
ell lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring TO this
Constitution, which II declared TO DO sub
stantially the same as the Constitution OF
1886, 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 II In o
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes % Q means OF raising rev.
enuo were alono within tho contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for tho purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there IL therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was In.
tended to DO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
. mischief which did not exist, and toler.
sting that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the beno.
ft Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges, for tho improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally ~commcndable and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but a that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not DO
done that good might follow, and upon tho
more 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. The promotion Of the flno arts IL un.
doubtedly 0 commendable 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 as
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
lhtuIo W pam ibWb w pkeFohs - peAS "
all lottery tickets, to put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods BY
lot or chance % had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho namo Of
private lotteries"
Tho argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries asa means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, is wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and wo are satisfied thai
mono can be found.
In constituting this provision OF tho Con.
~stitution the last sentence - - important
% tho first.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by tho use Of the words: "No
lottery shall be authorized by this State"
to only limit tho legislative power to pub.
lie 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 sem
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts be allowed" These words clearly
show that Il was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized by this State