Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-19

ton OF tuo plain lettot anu bpiIlt Of tuin
provision OF the Constitution. It would
be Q perversion Of the 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 It's trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the State In o system Of public
lotteries as 0 means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended q Q Limitation OF power
To prevent tho State, as o 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 tho right to authorize private
parties TO conduct and carry on . lottery
OF the character specified in tho informa.
ton.
In support OF this position they refer to
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of Q
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 10 proper to
examine them In case Of doubt Is 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 at issue. They are a. much In
favor OF the position taken by the Attorney
General as they are In favor Of the respon.
dents. Tho 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-
lions 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 tho
old Constitution Of New York, to which
reference has been mado 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 occasion OF Sc
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. Tho result 30 clearly estab.
lished the evils OF tho lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1916, In.
serted o clause in the very first article OF
the now Constitution Iseo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him q
that this prohibition was n OF tho best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of tho 10th Section OF Ar
ticle l Of tho Constitution OF 1886, 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. IL was con
tended by Charles 0'Connor, counsel for
tho Art Union, as IL Is here, that tho 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 tho prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
" the fact, as do counsel here, that 'from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author
lied at every session OF Parliament" He
also referred to tho debates Of the Consti'
tutional Convention OF 1871, for the pur'
pose Of showing that public lotteries fol
~pecuniary prizes as q means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contemplA'
ton Of that body"
Tho Consultation Of 1921 is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter b
authorized In this State, and tho Legis
lature shall pass laws to prevent tho sale oil
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which II declared to DO sub.
stautially the Same as the Constitution oil
1916, said: "This prohibition Is general.
II must be held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clover and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In q
moro limited sense. 1t was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes as Q means OF raising rev.
enuo were alone within tho contemplation
Of tho trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enuc. and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was in
tended to be limited to lotteries for thai
object. This would havo been restraining
o mischief which did not exist, and toler'
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene'
at Of colleges, for the making Of roads, fol
the building OF bridges, for tho improve
ment Of ferries. for tho erection OF hos
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally c~ommendablo and beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition,
The prohibition was not aimed ct tho OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but Of that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. It was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
dono 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
II. Tho promotion OF tho ino arts Is un-
doubtedly Q c~ommendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception in its
favor on that ground. =
The intention OF the trainers OF tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had ct any time previously been author
lied by law, and by requiring tho Legis.
laturo to pass laws to prevent tho sale OF
all lottery tickets, 10 put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance as had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho namo 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 0 means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. is wholly I'M.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and VIC are Satisfied that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
stitution the last sentence 10 a. important
81 the FIRST.
II tho trainers OF tho Constitution had
intended by tho use Of the words: "No
lottery shall be 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 not have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall tho sale OF lottery tick
els DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized by this State