Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-27

II has the essential elements add sttri.
butes Of . lottery; the distribntion Of prizes
by chance. his . lottery within the dsiin-
ition given in the dictionaries it's Q lot.
tsry according 10 the ordinary sooeptation
Of that word 10 II Q lottery within the
terms specified By The Legislaturs Of thi.
6tats In the "Aot 10 prohihit lotteriss y
fStss., 1878, 1881; u 10 Q lottsry within ths
meaning Of that werd - used In The Con-
sttution. -.
sscond-ls ~ Act approved March Q,
1881, constitudonslf ,
This qusstiou q q clear and plain %
our minds - ths one already decided. II
viii not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language ot the Constitution u sus.
esbtbls Of bat oas meaning. There u no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
mo lottery shsll bs authorised By thls
Hats, nor shall tbs sale Of lottsry tioksts
b. allowed" fConst., Art. ~. Sse. -. ]
The Act In question attempts 70 suthor'
iss a lottery, and 70 allow the sale Of Lot.
tsry tickets In this State In direct viola
lion Of the PLATA isttsr and spirit Of this
proyision Oh The Consultation. u would
30 . perversion Of the language OF the Con-
sdtutiou % ~ that the Aot u valid.
Respondsnts, however. contend that the
Constitution does not prohibit private
lottsries, and wss BY IT. frsmers Intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In
volving the Stats In . aystem Of public
lotteries a . means OF raising money for
the service OF the 6ats." or. In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was only intended - Limitation Of power
70 prevent the State. - . Stste, from en-.
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
OF rsising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Hence they claim that the
State has the right 70 snthorlse private
parties 10 conduct and carry on lottsry
Of the character spsoiaed In tie informa-
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
don In California upon the adoption OF .
provision In tho Constitution OF that State
Identical with ours. Il II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision. but that IL 10 proper 70
sxamine them In case Of doubt a. 70 the
intention OF the iramsrs Of tho Constitu-
ton. The remarks Of the different mem
bsrs shed but little light upon the real
question st Issue. They are 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 Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred 10 10
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.
lions you will fnd this clause. Il was not
contained in the old Constitution. but In
most cases, where 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 remsmber
the famous case Of Yates and Mcintyre.
which involved not only individuals Of the
STATE In ruin. but was the o,cssion Of se-
rious embarrassment 10 the Stats Govern
ment itself. The result % clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery systsm that
the Convention Of New York. In i6ie, In.
serted clause In the very Arst article OF
the new Constitution (see Section 1ol
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. Il appeared 70 him
that this prohibition was one Of the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature."
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticls Of the Constitution Of isle. refer
red TO by Mr.. Halleck 10 - follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorised
or any sale Of lottsry tickets allowed with
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouss ".
American Art Union, supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Conpor. counsel for
the Art Union, q 10 10 here, that the Con.
stisution wss only intsndsd 70 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.
tious Of the Constitution were only directed
sesinst this particular evil. He referred
% the fact, a DO counsel here, that "irom
i709 to 1894 public lotteries were author'
lied at every session Of Parliamsnt." Hs
also referred 10 the debates Of the Consti.
tutionsl Convention Of 1871, for the pur.
pose Of showing that "public lotteries for
pecuniary prisss a. Q means Of raising
revenue we're alone within the contempla-
tion Of that body"
The Consututiou OF 1871 ID In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
sathorixed In this State, and the Legis.
lsturs 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 70 this
Constitution, which u declared 10 be sub.
stantially the same a the Consultation Of
lSi6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must b held 70 embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts
factory reason for understanding II In .
moro limited sense. Il Was urged upon
the argument that public lotteris: for Pc
cuniary prizes - 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.
enuo, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended 70 be limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
4 mischief which did not exist, and toler.
sting that which did. Lotteries had besn
authorised BY the Legislature for the bene'
a. Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos
pitsls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable and bsnencial. All
these we're clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
izsd, but At that particular mode OF aeoom'
plishing such objects. II was founded on
The moral principle that evil should not b
done that good might follow. and upon the
more cosent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
rambling greatly overbalanced In the
Aggregate any good likely 10 result from