Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-16

II has the essential elements and attri.
butes OF lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. It 10 . lottery within The dsan.
ition given 10 the dictionaries; IL 10 . lot.
terry according to the ordinary acceptation
Of that word f; IL 10 lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of thi.
Stats In the "Act TO prohibit lotteries ="
IStat., 1878, 1851; 10 Il lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con-
stitution.
second ia the Act approved March o.
1881. eonstitutionslf
This question Il - clear and plain 70
our minds % the one already decided. 1t
will not admit Of any reasonable doups'
The language Of the Constitution 10 sus.
osptible Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
No lottery shall bs authorized BY this
Sate, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
bs allowed" [Const., Art. ~. Sec. ~. ]
The Act In question attempts 70 suthor'
ise lottery. and to allow the sale OF lot
tery tickets In this State In direct viola.
tion Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision Of the Consultation. II would
be \ perversion Of the language OF the Con-
stitution to say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents. however. contend that the
Consultation "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and wss by its trainers intended
only 70 prevent the Legislature from 10.
volving the State Ia . system OF public
lotteries a. means OF raising money Tor
tho service Of tho State" Or. In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was ouly intended a. Limitation OF power
70 prevent the State, - State, from en-
gaging in public lotteries for the purpose
OF raising means for tho 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 informa.
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
tion In California upon the adoption OF .
provision In the Constitution OF that State
Identical with ours. It 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF .
judicial decision, but that IL 10 proper to
examine them In case Of doubt ~ TO the
intentio 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 are 40 much in
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General a. they are In favor Of the rcspon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition OF New York was referred ~ 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-
tions you will find this clause. II WAS not
contained in the old Constitution. but In
most cases. where they have been
amended, 1, has been introduced. In the
old Cons titution Of New York, TO which
ref. renee hss been made In the course Of
debate, no prohibition was inserted.
Many gentlemen present would remember
the famous case of Yates and Mclutyre
which involved not only individuals Of the
State 10 ruin. but was the occasion of se.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
msnt itself. The result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of tho lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1916. In.
serted Q clause In the very hrst article Of
the new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries aud the sale OF lot.
tery tickets. 1t appeared to 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.
ticle OF the Constitution Of 1915. refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck 10 as follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed With.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse W.
American Art Union, supra. 1t was con.
tended by Charles U'Conuor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL 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. aud that the prohibi.
tions Of the Cons stitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
To the fact, a. 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 ths Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921. for the pur.
pose Of showing that "public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the eontempla.
ton Of that body"
The Consultation Of 1871 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lsture shall pass laws TO 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 IL declared to be sub
stsntially tho same ss the Constitution Of
1876, said: "Thissprohibition 10 general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries.
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In .
more limited sense. 1t WIS urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a. 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.
snue, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In
tended to be limited to lotteries for tha,
object. This would have been restraining
q mischief which did not exist, and toler'
sting that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene'
ht Of colleges. for the making OF roads, Tor
the building of bridges. for the improve
meut Of ferries. for the erection Of hos
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendabls aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at tue OBJ
Iects for which lotteries had been author.
lied. but at 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 cosent practical reason that the evil
.,n.aouant nm this rhrniciona Kind al