Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-14

y.t A.. ....-t.l .f.c.nnt. srd .klri
~ mas .no essea .sa s,ss.;Sns;,. =, n.,...
ou'es oI 'o,.e! y. I..u" uyI n;,h;U ~. W. IA
oy cnance. Tvs ,1'sIy .iu 4. w esh ~.
inon gwen 70 sns uieuonas, M Nv
tery according 70 tne oIoinsry scSsp@u4n
OF that WORD iotsety WIInIn ,ne
terms specined oy inc Legisiasure oi tnis
State in the !" Act TO prohibit lotteries
lstat.. 1878. 1851; IL u . lottery within tne
meaning Of that woro ~ useo IN sne oon'
stitution. u a
Second-is tne Aet sPPfo'so "ss'u y
1881, CONSTITUTIONAL
This question 10 q clear sno Pi.in "
our minds - the one already decided. IL
will not admit OF any reasonable DOUBT
The language OF the Consutuuon u sus-
ceptible Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
=" No lottery shall DC autnorixeo y .n.s
State. nor shall the sale OF lottery ucae',
be allowed" Const.' Art'' W. oec. ~.
The Act In question attempts 70 autnot'
ixe lottery. and to allow the sale OF iot'
terry tickets In this stase IN aIieos siola-
ton OF the plain letter sna sPirIs oI .n,s
provision OF tho Consutuuon. ~ w0uIo
be perversion OF tne isnsusse ,;s o' ,So oon'
shtution 70 say tnat tne ACT 10 vsu.
Respondents, however, oon,ena .na. tne
Constitution docs not pronioi! privsE
lotteries, and was by iu trainers intsnueo
only to prevent the Legislature from in'
volving the State In system OF puoiio
lotteries a. means OF raising money Tor
the service OF the state, or; 10 o'her
words that this cons',sutionA pIS.sson
was only intended as limitation OF power
TO prevent the state, - state' from GU
gazing in public lotteries Tor 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 lottery
Of the character specified In tile informs'
tion.
In support OF this position they reier 70
the debates OF the Constituhonai Conven-
ton in California upon the adoption OF
provision in the Constitution OF that State
identical with ours. II is not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF .
judicial decision, but that 1t Is proper to
examine them In case OF doubt a. 70 the
intention OF the framers OF tne Consutu'
tion. The remarks OF the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the reai
question at issue. They are as much In
favor Of the position taken by tho Attorney
General a. they are In favor OF tho respon.
dents. The debates show that tho Consti'
tuition OF New York was referred TO in
discussing tho 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 find this clause. II was not
In the old Constitution. but In
most cases. where they have been
amended, IL has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York. to which
reference has been made In tho 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 20.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 40 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York, In lSi6, In.
serted clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution see Section lol
lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
Ing tho powers Of the LEGISLATURE.
The language OF the ioth section OF Ar
tcle OF tue constitution OF iofo' teIsr.
red TO by M. haiieek 10 a. toiiows NO.
shall any lottery hereaitsr DO antnoritsu
or any sale OF lottery tickeu alloWsu Witn'
In this State"
In the Governors OF the Aimshouse W.
American Art Union. supra, u was con-
tended BY Charles o'Connor, counsel ior
the Art Union, a. IT 10 here that the Con'