Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-16


butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. It 10 lottery within the defn.
ition given In the dictionaries; IL 10 . lot.
terry according TO the Ordinary acceptation
of that word IL II lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of this
State In the "Act to prohibit lotteries "
| IStat., 1873, 1851; IL 10 . lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con.
stitutiop.
second-Is the Act approved March Q.
1881, constitutional2
This question 10 a clear and plain TO
our minds - the ono already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution Ii sus.
ceptible Of but one meaning. There 10 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. Nv. Bee. ~. ]
Tue Act In question attempts 10 author.
ixe . lottery. and to allow the sale OF lot
terry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton OF the plain letter aud spirit OF this
provision OF the Constitution. IL would
be psrversion Of the language OF the Con-
stitution to say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondsnts. however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by its trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In
volving the State In . system OF public
lotteries a. means OF raising money Tor
the service OF the State." or. In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was only intended ~ Limitation OF power
TO prevent the State. as State, from en-.
gsging In public lotteries for the purpose
II 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 tie 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 10 proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt a. 10 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu-
ton. The remarks Of the different mem
bers shed but little light upon the real
question st issue. They arc a. much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General a they are In favor OF the respon-
dents. The debates show that the Oonsti.
tuition Of New York was referred 10 In
discussing the provision that was adopted
in California. Mr.. Hslleck. 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. It was not
contained in the old Consultation. but In
most cases. where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York. 70. 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 10 ruin, but was the occasion OF Be-
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 1886, in.
serted Q clause In the very drst article Of
the new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF loti
terry tickets. 1t 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
ticls Of the Constitution OF l8i6. refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck 10 a. follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors OF the Almshouss 70.
American Art Union, supra, IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, % IL 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 10 prevent the
mischisvous practice Of raising revenue
by public lotteries. which had been for
many ysars 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
to the fact. a. do counsel here, that "from
l709 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied Ut every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Oonsti.
tutionsl Convention OF 1871, for the pur.
pose Of showing that "publio lotteries for
pecunisry prizes a. . means OF raising
revenue we're alone within the oontsmpla.
ton Of that body"
1Qb OOuuatQlo4 VI 1904 - ~ tagso
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
laturs shall pass laws 70 prevent the sale OF
ell 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 bs sub.
stsntislly the same ~ the Constitution Of
is46, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must be held to embrace all lotteries.
unless there be some very clover and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes % Q means Of raising rev.
enue were 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.
snue, 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 tolsr.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene.
ht Of colleges, for the making OF roads, for
the building Of bridges. for tho improve
ment OF ferries, for the erection OF hos.
pitals, and for various other purposes
equally oommendable and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
ized, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not bs
done that good might follow. and upon the
sIa anil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
.-hli.o orasklv nvarhalanrad In tha