Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-25

II has the essential elements and Attrt.
butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. II 10 . lottery within the dsfn-
ition given In the dictionaries; IL 10 lot.
terry according to the, ordinary acceptstion
Of that word ; IL 10 . lottery within the
terms specified BY the Legislature OF this
State In tho "Act TO prohibit lstteries !"
Istst.. 1878. 1851; u 10 lottsry within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con-
sutution.
Sscond-Is the Act approved March ..
1881, constitutional
This question 10 a clear and plain 70
our minds a the one already decided. 1t
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution IL sus.
osptibls Of but one meaning. There to no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall be authorised BY this
stats, nor shall the sale Of lottsry tickets
b allowed" [Const.. Art. ~. Seo. ~.
The Act In question attempts 70 author
ixs . lottery, and 10 allow the sale OF lot.
tery tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
proviSion Of tho Constitution. II would
be perversion Of the language OF the 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 a. means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended ~ Limitation Of power
10 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 to conduct and carry on lottery
Of the character specified In the informa.
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
the debates OF the Constitutional Conven.
ton In Californis upon the adoption OF
provision In the Constitution OF that State
identical with ours. II 10 not claimed
that these debates have tue weight OF .
judicial decision, but that IL 10 proper TO
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 tho real
question at issue. They are ~ much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General ~ they are In favor Of the respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred 70 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.
tions you will And this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution. but In
most cases. where they have been
amended, II has been introduced. In the
old Consultation 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 o.casion Of Sc
rious embarrassment 10 the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 30 clearly esab.
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1876, In.
serted Q clause In the very frst article OF
the new Constitution sec 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 be inserted In the article limit.
Ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticls Of the Constitution Of i8i6, refer.
red to by Mr. Hslleok 10 - follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse VI.
tended by Charles o'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 70 prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In foil vigor both In England
aud in this country. aud that the prohibi.
tious Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, a. do counsel here. that "from
1909 to 1874 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
pecuniary prizes as . means Of raising
revenue we're alone within the oontsmpla-
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1921 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
ali lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for BY law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring. 70 this
Constitution. which 10 declared to be sub.
stan ntiAlly the same - the Consultation OF
isi6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must be held TO embrace all lotteries,
unlsss there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In ,
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
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 the prohibition was In.
tended to DO 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, Tor
the building Of bridges, for the improve.
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitals. and for various other purposes
equally commendable and beneficial. ALI
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition WAS not aimed at tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
izsd, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. It was founded ON
the moral principle that evil should not bs
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cosent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalsnced In the
..-...I. ana nnod liLalx IN reanlt frnun