Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-04

Il has the essential elements and attri.
butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. Il 10 lottery within the ds6n.
ition given In tho dictionaries; IL 10 lot.
terry according 10 the ordinary aoceptation
Of that word II 10 lottery within the
terms specified BY the Legislature Of this
State In the "Act to prohibit lotteries "
IStat., 1878, 1851; 10 u lottsry within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con-
stitution.
sscoud-Is the Act approved March Q.
1881. coustitutionslf
This question Il - clear and plain 70
our minds a. the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any Reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Consultation 10 sus.
c<ptible Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can bs bassd. %,
"No iottsry shall bs authorised By this
State, nor shall the sale Of lotssry ticket.
bs allowed" Const.. Art. Nv. Seo. ~. ]
The Act In question attempts 70 author'
iss Q lottery. and 10 allow the sale OF lot
tsry tickets In this Stats In direct yiola.
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of the Consultation. Il would
be q pervsrsiou Of the lang Of the oon-
stisution 70 say that the Act 10 valid.
R.spondsnts, however, oontcnd that the
Consultation "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was ty IT. framers iptsnded
only to prevent the Legislature from 10.
volving the State In system OF public
lotteries Al means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or. 10 other
words, that this constitutional provision
vas 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 10 authoriss private
parties 70 conduct and carry on lottsry
Of the character specified IN the informa.
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
tho debates Of the Constitutional Conven.
tiou in California upon the adoption OF .
provision 10 the Consultation OF that STATE
Identical with ours. Il 10 not claimed
that these debates have tue weight Of q
Judicial decision. but that IL 10 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 are ~ much In
favor Of the position taken BY the Attorney
General ~ they are 10 favor OF the respou.
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 srgument,
said: "In nearly all the new Coustitu.
tions you will And this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution. but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Constitution 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 hcIntyre
which involved not only individuals of tho
state 10 ruin. but was the occasion Of se.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estab.
lished the evils VI the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1915, In.
serted clause In the very hrst article Of
the new Constitution see Section lol
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
t<ry tickets. It appeared TO 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 1916. reier.
red to by Nr. Halleck II - follows "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouss 70.
American Art Union, supra, 1t was con.
tended by Charles O'connor. counsel for
the ART Union, a. 10 10 here, that the Con.
stitntiou was only intended 70 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, aud that the prohibi.
tious Of the Cons stitutiou were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
20 the fact, a. do counsel here. that "from
i709 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" he
also referred to the dsbates Of the Consti'
tutional Convention Of 1871. for the pur'
pose Of showing that "publio lotteries Tor
pecuniary prizes a. . means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempla'
ton Of that body"
The Consr.ution Of 1891 IL In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws 70 prevent the sale oi
all lottery tickets within this State except
in lotteries already provided for BY law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring TO this
Constitution, which 10 declared to be sub.
stsutislly the same - the Constitution oi
l8i6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must 10 held to embrace all lotteries
unless there bs somo very clever and salts
factory reason for understanding II Ia
more limited sense. 1t wu urged upon
the argument that public lotterits ior pc
cuuiary prizes ~ means Of raising rev
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. Bu'
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev
enue. aud there 10 therefore no ground Tor
believing that the prohibition was In
tended to be limited 10 lotteries for that
object. This would have been restrsinJ
q mischief which did not exist, and toler'
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the brns'
Ht Of colleges. for the making OF roads, fo'
the building Of bridges. for the improve
msnt Of ferries. for the erection of hos
pitfalls. and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition
The prohibition was not aimed st the oh
jects for which lotteries had been author
izsd. but at that particular mode OF accom-
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not b,
done that good might follow, and upon tht
more cossnt practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind o.
esmbliug greatly overbslsnced 10 th,