Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-17

Ak0 ASttSty eha ~ eAAoW y &&s
tory tickets In this State In direct viola
tion OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
be q 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 its trainers intended
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In
yolying the State in 0 systom OF public
lotteries as 0 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
10 prevent the State, % . State, from en-
In public lotteries for the purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
OF the State. Honce they claim that tho
State has tho right To authorize private
TO conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In tho 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 .
judicial decision, but that II 10 proper to
examine them In case OF doubt % 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 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. The debates shsw that the Consti-
A.At.. ~ Mo- Vnek -aa SaforIaI IN 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 tho new Constitu-
lions you will find this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, whore they have been
amended, II has been introduced. In tho
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 the
State In ruin, but was the occasion OF So
rious embarrassment to tho State Govern
mont itself. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished tho evils Of tho lottery system that
tho Convention Of New York. In 1916, In.
serted o clause In the very first article OF
tho new Constitution Isee Section l0I
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot
tory tickets. 1t appeared TO him .
that this prohibition was ono OF the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit
ing tho powers OF the legislature"
Tho language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I Of tho Constitution OF 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is a. 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. It was con.
tended by Charles o'Connor, counsel for
tho Art Union, a. II Ia here, that the Con-
stitution was only intended to prevent tho
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.
tons OF the Constitution wero only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to tho fact. ~ do counsel hero, 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 1921, for tho pur.
pose OF showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes AZ Q means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempls'
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and tho Lcgis.
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 II declared to be sub.
stantially tho same Is the Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be soma very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In o
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes % . means OF raising row.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for tho purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there Is 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 tho Legislature for the bene'
at 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 aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within tho prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
ized, but a4 that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not DO
dono that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that tho evil
consequent on this pornicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
II. The promotion Of tho flne arts Is I'M.
doubtedly . communicable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground.
Tho 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 the Legis.
laturo to pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, to put an end TO all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance % had heretofore been for
hidden by statute undor the 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 0 means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. Ia wholly IN.
tenablc. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we arc satisfied that
can be found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence Is % important
as the first.
II the trainers OF tho Constitution had
intended by the use Of tho words: "No
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 sem
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
-. T.. .lIo-nID Thoa. ,,ords closvlv