Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-15

ition given In the dictionaries; IL 10 Q lot
terry according 10 the ordinary scceptation
Of that word IL 10 . lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of this
State In tho "Act to prohibit lotteries u
| IStst., 1873. 1851; 1t 10 . lottery within the
meaning Of that word a. used in the Con
| stitution.
second-Is the Act approved March ..
| 1881, constitutional
This question 10 a clear and plain TO
our minds as the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
| The language OF the Constitution Ia sus.
ceptible Of but one meaning. There Is no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall be authorized by this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
| be allowed" Const., Art, ~. Sec. ~.
The Act in question attempts to author'
| ize . lottery. and 10 allow the sale OF lot
terry tickets In this State In direct viola
tion Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision Of the Constitution. IL would
be . perversion Of the language OF the Con-
stitution 70 ssy 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.
yolving the State in system OF public
lotteries a. means OF raising money for
tho service OF the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended 40 limitation OF power
TO prevent the State. a. . State, from en-.
gaeing 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'
tion.
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 q
judicial decision, but that Ii Is proper to
Examine them in case OF doubt ~ to the
intention OF the trainers OF the Constitu-
tion. The remarks OF the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They arc as much In
favor Of the position taken BY the Attorney
dcutEAl tuty eiu az ie'ot VI Wv AsefS.
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred TO 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.
tons you will find this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In ths
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,cssiOn Of Sc
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result so clearly estab.
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1916, In.
serted clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared TO him
that this prohibition was one Of the beet
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I Of tho Constitution Of 1886, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck 10 ss 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 W.
American Art Union. supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL 10 here, that the 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
aud in this country. and that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, a. do counsel here. that "from
i709 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied ut 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 were alone within the contempla.
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1891 is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized in this State. and tho Legis.
lsture shall pass laws to prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lottaries already provided for by law"
The Court OF Appeals In referring TO this
Constitution, which 10 declared to be sub
stsntially the same A. the Constitution OF
lsiG, 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 II tn =
more limited sense. II wts urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes ~ means OF raising rev
enue we're 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 be limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
q mischief which did not exist, and toler.
sting that which did. Lotteries bad been
authorized by the Legislature for tho bene.
ft Of colleges, for the making OF roads, Tor
the building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection OF hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable and beneficial. All
tntBe were clthEiy Wituiu tuo PfohAeAaoh'
The prohibition was not aimed at tho OBJ.
iects for which lotteries had been author
lied. but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
the 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. tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. The promotion OF tho fne arts 10 nm.
doubtedly commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of the trainers Of the 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 the Legis.
lsture to pass laws TO prevent the 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 name Of
private lotteries.
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing the Legislature from authoris
| ing public lotteries a. means Of raising