Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-28

terry tickeU IN this btAto In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
DO o perversion Of tho language OF the Con-
stitution to say that the Act Il valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by is trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the State in . system OF public
lotteries ss Q means Of raising money for
tho service OF the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. . limitation Of power
70 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 Of 0 lottery
Of the character specified In the Informs
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 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF Q
judicial decision, but that IL Ia 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 the real
question ct issue. They are a much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General a. they are In favor Of tho 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 tho adoption Of tho 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, u has boon introduced. In tho
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 the occasion OF 30.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern
ment itself. The result so clearly estab.
lished the OWLS Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of Now York. In 1916, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution lseo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. II appeared TO him
that this prohibition was one 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 I 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 O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as IL Is hero, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising Q 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 wero only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, a. do counsel here, that ''from
l709 to 1924 public lotteries were author
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred 10 tho debates Of the Consti-
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose OF showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. . 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 the Legis.
lature shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
Ill lokk.., tt,Lats vtthtr thts qt.ta axnapt
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which IL declared to be SUBJ
stsntially the same a. the Constitution Of
1876, 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 IL In 0
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes % 0 means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
OF the trainers Of tho Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there Ia therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was In.
tended TO DO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
o mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the beno.
at Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment OF ferries, for the erection OF hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendablo and beneficial. All
tleso were clearly within the prohibition.
Tho prohibition was not aimed ct the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but II that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not BIO
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly oyerbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely TO result from
IL. The promotion OF the fne arts 10 I'm.
doubtedly . commcndablo object, but tho
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:
laturo to pass laws TO prevent tho sale Of
all lottery tickets, to put IN end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho lame Of
private lotteries" .
Tho argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose OF
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries na means OF raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. Ii wholly un.
tensble. No authority has been produced
In Its support and NO are satisfed that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence " - important
as tho first.
II the Trainers Of tho 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 10 was not intended that any
- L.. ALtA GNANA