Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-01

II has the essential elements and attri.
butes Of . lottery; the distribution Of prizes
BY chance. II is lottery within the dsnn'
ition given IN tho dictionaries u 10 Q Let.
tsry according 70 the ordinary sccepaton
Of that word IL 10 lottery within the
tsrms specified BY the Legislators OF thi.
State In the "Act TO prohibit letteries "
Istst., 1879, 1851; 10 10 . lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con-
sutution.
sscond-Is the Act approved March Q.
1881, constitutional
This question Il - clear and plain %
our minds a the one already decided. IT
will mot admit Of any rsasonabls doubt.
The Language Of the 0onstitution 10 aus.
osptible Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can b bsssd.
"No lottery shall bs authorised BY this
Stats, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
Be allowed" (Const., Art, ~. Sso. ~. ]
The Act In question attempts 70 author'
ise lottery. and 10 ALLOW the sale OF lot
tory tickets In this Stats In direct viola.
tion Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision Of the Consultation. II would
bs psrversion Of the language OF the Con-
stitution 10 say that The Act 10 valid.
Respopdsnts, however, contend that the
Constitution |" does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was By its trainers intsoded
only 70 prevent the Legislaturs from in-
volving the State in . system OF pubic
lotteries - means OF raising money for
the service Of the State" Or. In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was only intended - Limitation Of power
10 prevent the Stats. - Q 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 TO authorize private
parties TO conduct and carry on lottsry
Of the character specified In the tnforms'
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 IL 10 proper to
examine them In case Of doubt a. 70 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Copstitu-
ton. The remarks Of the different mem
bsrs shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are a. much In
favor Of the position taken By the Attorney
General - they are 10 favor Of the respon.
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 argument,
said "In nearly all the new Oonstitu.
tons you will hnd this clause. Il 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 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 o,ossion OF se-
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 10 clearly estab-
lished the evils OF the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. 10 1876, In.
serted clause In the very frst article Of
the new Constitution zee Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
sery tickets. II appeared 10 him
that this prohibition WAS one OF the bIst
that could bs inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th section Of Ar
ticls Of tho Constitution Of 1886. refer
red to by Mr.. Hslleck 10 - follows: Nor
shall any lottery hereafter bs authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouss ~.
American Art Union, supra, 10 was con.
tended BY Charles. O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL 10 here. that the Con.
stitution was only intsndsd 10 prevent the
mischisvous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries. which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, aud that the prohibi.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, % do counsel here, that "from
l709 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the 0onsti.
tutional Convention Of 1871. for the pur.
pose Of showing that "publio lotteries for
pecuniary prizes - . means Of raising
revenue we're alone within the contsmpla.
uon Of that body"
The Consi.Ition Of 1871 Il In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this stats, and the Lsgis.
laturs shall pass laws 70 prevent the sale Of
ali lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for BY Law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which 10 declared to bs sub
stantislly the same % the Constitution of
lSie, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must be held 70 embrace all lottsries.
unless there be some very clever and salts
factory reason for understsnding 10 IN Q
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pe-
euniary prizes % Q means Of raising rev.
snus we're 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 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended to b limited TO lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
mischief which did not exist, and toler'
sting that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized BY tho Lsglslature for the bens'
dt Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection of hos
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally oommendabls aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
| The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ
iects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-
| plishing such objects. Il Was founded on
| the moral principle that evil should not b
| done that good might follow, and upon the
more sosent practical reason that the evil
| consequent on this pernicious kind oi
gambling greatly oyerbsl.ncsd 10 the