Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-24

eAASH ~ D8A0 Va wv
tory tickets In this State In direct yiola-
ton OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
DO q perversion Of tho language OF the Con-
sutution TO say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution docs not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by It's trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
yolving tho State in Q 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 % Q Limitation OF power
TO prevent the State, O. o 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 tho right to authorize private
parties TO conduct and carry on Q 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 Il 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 Constitu-
ton. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon tho real
question at issue. They are as 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 In
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleok, who was In
favor Of the adoption Of tho lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said "In nearly all the new Constitu-
lions you will fnd this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In tho
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 the occasion Of So
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern
ment itsolf. The result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of tho lottery system that
the Convention OF New York. In 1886, in
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
tho new Constitution [seo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. It appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could be inserted In tho article limit.
ing tho powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle / OF the Constitution OF 1876, 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 the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union. supra, II was con.
tended by Charles 0'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as Il is here, that tho 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.
tions OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular. evil. He referred
TO tho fact, as do counsel here, that 'irom
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied ct 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 . means OF raising
revenue were alone within tho contempla'
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1891 Is In these
words:. "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State. and tho 'Lcgis.
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 be sub.
stantially tho same ~ the Constitution oil
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held TO embrace oil lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In q
moro limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pe-
cuniary prizes a. . means OF raising rev.
enuo wore Alono within tho contemplation
OF the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have mover been created within
this State for the purpose OF general row.
enue, and there IL therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was In.
tended to DO limited TO lotteries for thai
object. This would have been restraining
0 mischief which did not exist, and toler'
ating that which did. Lotteries had beer
authorized by the Legislature for the bene'
at Of colleges, for tho making Of roads, fol
the building Of bridges, for the improve
mont Of ferries. for the erection OF hos
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally c~ommendable aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition,
The prohibition was not aimed ct tho OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. It 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 oil
gambling greatly oyerbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion Of the fne arts Ia I'M
d~oubtedly Q commendablo object, but the
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 ct any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
laturo 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 - had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under the namo Of
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries u Q means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was mol
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, IL wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satisfed that
non can DO found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence u ss important
IS the first.
II the 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 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 sen.
tence. "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
lottsrv .horld ha suthorixad hv thia akala