Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-07
I, h.s the essential elements and sttri.

II has the essential elements and attri.
butes OF lottery; the distribution Of prizes
By chance. It is lottery within the de6n-
ition given In the dictionaries; IL 10 . lot.
terry according to the ordinary acceptation
Of that word I; 10 10 Q lottery within the
terms specified by tho Legislature Of this
State In the "Act to prohibit lotteries !"
IStst., 1878, 1861; II 10 lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con.
stitutiou.
Second -Is the Act approved March 9,
1881. constitutional
This question II - clear and plain 70
our minds - the one already decided. 1t
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution is sus.
ceptible Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall be authorized by this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed" [Const., Art, ~. Bee. a..
The Act In question attempts 10 author
ixe 4 lottery, snd-so allow the sale OF lot.
terry tickets In this State In direct viola.
tion Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
proyision OF the Constitution. IL would
be perversion Of the Language OF the Con-
ssitution TO say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by its trainers intsnded
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving the State in . system OF public
lotteries a. means OF raising money for
the service Of the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. Limitation OF power
to prevent the State. - . State. from en-.
gsging 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 ofShis 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 10 not claimed
that these debates have tue weight OF
judicial decision, but that 1t 10 proper 70
examine them In case OF doubt as 10 the
intention of the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton. The remarks Of the different mem
bers shed but little light upon tho real
question at issns. They are m much In
favor OF the position taken by the Attorney
General as 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 wal 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 fnd 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. 10 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 o,casion OF So
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estab.
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York. In 1886, in.
serted clause In the very first article OF
the now Constitution SEQ Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
iery 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 lSi8. refer.
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is as follows: % Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
in this State"
In the Governors OF the Almshouse vs.
American Art Union, supra. 1t was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, as II IL 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
to the fact, as do counsel here. that "from
1903 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
slso referred to the debates Of the Consti-
tutional Convention Of 1921. for the pur-
pose Of showing that public lotteries Tor
pecuniary prizes as . means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempla.
ton Of that body.
Tho Constitution Of 1891 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
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 TINS
ustitution, which II declared to be sub
stantially the same a. the Constitution OF
lsi6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must be held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and satls'
factory reason for understanding 1t In
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries Tor Pc
cupisry prizes as Q means OF raising rev.
epue were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of tho Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose OF general rev
enue, and there Ia therefore no ground ior
believing that the prohibition was IN.
tended TO be limited to lotteries Tor tnat
object. This would havo been restraining
n mischief which did not exist, and toler'
stipg that which did. Lotteries had peen
authorized by the Legislature for the orne.
ft of colleges, for the making OF roads, ior
the building OF bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for tho erection Of nos
pitals, and for various other purposes
equally commondable aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition.
Tho prohibition WAS not aimed ct the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but at that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such bJects. It was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
I-uo L.s s,rnl ,uht follav anI nnnr thu