Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-26

ton OF the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be . perversion Of tho 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 tho Legislature from In
volving the State In . system Of public
lotteries a. 0 means OF raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended % . limitation Of power
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
Of raising means for the general revenue
OF the State. Hence they claim that tho
State has tho right to authorize private
parties to conduct and carry On o lottery
Of the character specified in the informa-
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
the debates OF tho Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of .
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. Il Il not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF 0
judicial decision, but that IL 10 proper 10
examine them In case Of doubt a. to the
intention Of the trainers Of tho Constitu-
tion. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are as much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General Is they are In favor OF the respon.
dents. The debates show that tho Consti-
tuition OF New York was referred 10 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 curse Of his argument,
said "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tons you will find this clause. It was not
contained 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 the course Of
debate, no prohibition vas inserted.
Many gentlemen present would remember
the famous case of Yates and Mcintyre,
which involved not only individuals Of tho
State In ruin, but was tho occasion OF Sc
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
mcnt itself. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished tho evils Of tho lottery system that
tho Convention Of New York. In lSiG. In.
serted . clause In the very first article OF
tho new Constitution Iseo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and tho salo OF lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition was ono OF the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of tho legislature"
Tho language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I Of tho Constitution Of 1916. 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 the Governors OF the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union. supra. 1t was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as IL Is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 10 prevent tho
mischievous practice Of raising 0 revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
aud In this country, and that the prohibi.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. Ho referred
to tho fact, a. do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session OF Parliament" He
also referred to the debates OF the Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921, for tho pur.
pose OF showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes % . means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contompla.
ton OF that body"
The Constitution OF 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and tho Legis.
laturo shall pass laws to prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets within this State. except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring TO this
Constitution, which IL declared to be sub
stantially tho Same as tho Constitution OF
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
It must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In .
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes as Q means OF raising rev.
enuo were alone within the contemplation
OF tho trainers Of the 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 the 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 bene-
1t Of colleges. for the making Of roads, for
tho building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries, for tho erection Of hos.
pitfalls. and for various other purposes
equally commendable and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but q that particular modo 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
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion Of the flno arts Is un.
doubtedly o commendable object, but the
prohibition contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground.
Tho intention Of tho trainers OF tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
lature to pass laws TO prevent the sale Of
Ill lOttcTy UCkeI5p W put III euu w 81
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance as had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under tho name 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 as Q means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, Is wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and wa arc satisfied that
mono can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
stitution the last sentence Is o. important
a. tho first.
II tho trainers OF tho Constitution had
Intended by tho uso Of tho words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit tho legislative power to pub.
lie lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by tho State for tho purpose Of raising
revenue, they would mot have used tho
language they did In the concluding sen.
tcnce, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that It was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized by this State
for any purpose.
Tho vords % he tbis atate ., m used In