Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-31

terry ttcke1 In tn1B btAto In oitocs VIVA
ton Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
be Q perversion Of the language OF the Con-
stitution TO say that the Act II valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
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 20 Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended % . Limitation OF power
to prevent the State, % Q State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
Of tho State. Hence they claim that the
State has the right to authorize private
parties TO conduct and carry on 0 lottery
Of tho 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 .
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. II IL not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
Judicial decision. but that 10 II 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 ct issue. They are a. much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General % they are In favor Of the respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred 10 In
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleok, 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, where they have been
amended, II 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 occasion OF So
rious embarrassment to the State Govern
ment itself. The result 80 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
tho Convention Of New York, In 1916. In.
serted 0 clause In the very frst article Of
the new Constitution (see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and tho sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared to him =
that this prohibition was 0ne Of the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature."
The language Of tho 10th Section Of Ar.
ticle / OF the Constitution OF 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is Is follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors Of tho Almshouso vs..
American Art Union, supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, Is II is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mlschievous 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.
lions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular OWL. He referred
to 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 the debates OF the Consti'
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur'
pose Of showing that public lotteries fol
~pecuniary prizes % . means OF raising
revenue we're alono within the contempla
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1891 10 In thesI
words: "No lottery shall hereafter b.
authorized In this State, and the Legis
lature shall pass laws 10 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 thii
Constitution, which II declared to DO sub
stantially tho same - the Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general,
It must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clover and salts
factory reason for understanding II In q
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pe'
cuniary prizes % Q means OF raising rev
enue were alone within tho contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. Bui
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev
enue, and there 10 therefore NO ground FOL
believing that the prohibition was In
tended 10 DO limited 10 lotteries for tina
object. This would have been restraining
0 mischief which did not exist, and toler
ating that which did. Lotteries had beer
authorized by the Legislature for the b~ne
at OF colleges, for the making Of roads, foI
the building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos
pitfalls, and for various other purpose
equally oommendable aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within tho prohibition
The prohibition was not aimed ct the OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. II wal founded OF
the moral principle that evil should not b,
done that good might follow, and upon tn
more cogent practical reason that tho evi
consequent on this pernicious kind o
gambling greatly overbalanced In th,
aggregate any good likely to result from
Il. The promotion Of the fino arts 10 I'M
doubtedly 0 commendable object, but III,
| prohibition contains no exception In II
favor ON that ground.
The intention Of the trainers OF the Con
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid thu
future granting Of any such lotteries q
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis
lature TO pass laws 70 prevent the sale o
all lottery tickets, to put an end TO al
such distributions Of money or goods b,
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under the name o.
private lotteries" =.
The argument that the words "by thii
State" were inserted for tho purpose o.
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries as . means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was no
intended 10 prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly I'M
tenable. No authority has been produced
In is support and we are satisaed tina
none can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con
stitution the last sentence h 90 imPortan,
ss tho first.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by tho use Of the words: "Nt
lottery shall DO authorized by this State
to only limit the legislative power to pub
lilo lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by tho State for the purpose OF raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding SEN
tence, "Eor shall tho sale Of lottery tick
cts be allowed" These words clearly
show that Il was not intended that any
lottery should be authofized by this State