Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-20

II has the essential elements and sttri.
butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. II IL . lottery within the dsnn-
ition given In the dictionaries; u u Q let
tsry according 10 the ordinary acoeptation
Of that word I; IL II . lottery within the
terms spsciAed BY the Legislature OF this
State In the "Act 10 prohibit lstteriee I"
IStst., 1878, 1851; 10 10 lottsry within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con.
stitution.
sscond-Is the Act approved March o,
1881, constitutionalf
This question u - clear and plain 70
our minds - the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution IL sus.
espfibls Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based. 49,
:" No lottery shall be authorised BY this
STATE, nor shall ths sale Of lettsry tickets
bs allowed" Oonst.. Art, Nv. Seo. a4.l
The Act In question sttsmph 70 snthor'
Ire Q lottery, and 10 allow the sale OF lot.
terry tickets In this State In direct viola
sion Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision of the Constitutfou. - would
10 perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution TO say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution does mot prohibit private
lotteries, and was BY its trainers intsnded
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In
yolying the STATE In Q system Of public
lotteries - means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
vas only intended - limitation OF power
10 prevent the State. - . State, from en-.
gaging 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 lottery
Of the character specified In the Informs
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
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 IL proper to
examine them In case OF doubt % TO the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu-
tion. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are - 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 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 Censtitu-
tions you will find this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution. but In
most cases, where they have been
amended. 10 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 Mclntyre,
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin. but was the occasion Of Sc
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, 10 1886. In.
serted clause in the very first article OF
the new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared TO him .
that this prohibition was one OF tho best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle Of the Constitution Of 1876. refer
red 70 by Mr.. Halleok 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 ".
American Art Union. supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles 0'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. 10 10 here, that the Con.
stitution Was only intended TO prevent the
mischievous 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.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, ~ do counsel here, that "from
1909 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Consti.
tutionsl Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that "public lotteries for
peouniary prizes a. . means OF raising
revenue wero alone within the oontsmpla.
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1871 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State. and the Legis.
laturs shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
sll lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for BY law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which IL declared TO be sub
stantislly the same ~ the Constitution Of
1886, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must be held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes ~ means OF raising rev.
enus 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
enue, and there IL therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended to be limited TO lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
. mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the oene'
at Of colleges. for the making OF roads, Tor
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection OF hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally oommsndable aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects 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 be
done that good might follow. and upon the
more oosent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of