Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-08-12

Int ACT In question attempts 70 autnor.
ise . lottery. and 10 allow the sale Of lot
terry tickets In this State In direct yiols-
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF tho Constitution. II would
be . 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. trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In
volving the Btate In . system Of public
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 State, ~ . State, from On.
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 authorize private
parties to conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In the informa-
ton. @.
In support Of this position they refer 70
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
tQAL tuu8o 0u88tco haVo t10 W0thht VI -
judicial decision. but that II 10 proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt - 70 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 Arc - 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 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-
tons you will And this clause. It WAS not
| contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, whore they have been
amended, u 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 In ruin, but was the occasion OF Sc
| rious embarrassment 10 tho State Govern
ment itself. Tho result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils OF the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1886. In.
serted Q clause In the very hrst article OF
| the new Constitution (see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared TO him
that this prohibition was q OF the best
| that could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers OF the legislature"
Tho language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
| ticle I OF the Constitution Of 1886. refer
red TO by Mr.. Halleck 10 ~ follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra. II was con.
tended BY Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as II 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 years in full vigor both In England
aud In this country, and that the prohibi.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, as do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1874 public lotteries were author
lied ct every session Of Parliament" He
| also referred TO the debates Of the Consti-
| tutional Convention Of 1891, for the pur.
pose Of showing that I" public lotteries for
~pecuniAry prizes ~ . means OF raising
revenue were alone within the oontempla-
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1921 IL In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State. and tho Legis.
lsture shall pass laws 70 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
stantislly the same a. the Constitution Of
l8i6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
1t must be held 10 embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In .
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pe-
cuniary prizes a. . means Of raising rov.
enue were alone within tho contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose OF general rev
enue, and there IL therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended 10 be limited 10 lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
Q 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, for
the building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection OF hos
| pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable and beneficial. All
| these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but st that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
| the moral principle that evil should not be
| done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely 10 result from
IL. The promotion Of the fne arts 10 IN.
| doubtedly 0 commendable object, but the
| prohibition contains no exception In its
favor on that ground. .
| Tho intention Of the trainers Of the Con.
~stitution undoubtedly was 70 forbid tho
future granting OF any such lotteries a.
had Ut any timo previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis-
lsturs 70 pass laws 70 prevent tho sale Of
all lottery tickets, 10 put an end TO all
L nooh utntitbutioub - Mohuy W Hoous W
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under the name Of
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" we're inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
ing public lotteries - Q means Of raising
revenue, and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. II wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In it, support and w arc satisAed that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
stitution the last sentence 70 - important
- the first.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended BY tho use Of the words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized BY this State"
10 only limit tho legislative power TO pub
lilo 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
cts be allowed" These words clearly