Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-08-04

oopeoto O 0ut ooe 1nosos w
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based. -.
"No lottery shall DO authorized BY this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
bs allowed" (oonst.. Art, ~. 6eo. 34.l
The Act In question attempts 70 author'
ise Q lottery, and 10 allow the sale OF lot
tsry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
b q p~erversion Of the Language OF the Con.
stitution 10 Say that the Act u valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was BY Ii trainers intended
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In
volving the State In . system Of public
lotteries ~ . means OF raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
only intended ss.a Limitation OF power
10 prevent the State. - . 6tate, from En-
gazing 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 . lottsry
Of the character specified In the informa.
ton.
In supper. Of this position they refer to
the debates Of the Constitutional 0onven-
tion 10 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 IL ID proper 70
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 ii issue. They are - much In
favor Of the position tsten By the Attorney
General - they are In favor Of The respon-
dents. The debates show that the Consh-
tuition OF New York vas 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 the new Constitu-
lions you will and this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, whore 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 occasion Of So
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 20 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, 10 1876, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the now Constitution fsee Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared 10 him So
that this prohibition was one Of the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of tho legislature"
Tho language OF the 10th Section OF Ar.
tiole I Of the Constitution Of 1916. refer.
red TO by Mr.. Hslleok 10 a. follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse W.
American Art Union, supra, IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, - 10 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 10 prevent the
mlsohievous practice OF raising . revenue
by public lotteries. which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that the prohibl.
tions OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
10 the fact, Is do counsel here, that ''from
i709 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred 10 the debates Of the Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1871, for tho pur-
pose OF showing that 7" public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes Is . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla.
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1871 10 In these
words: ."No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lsture shall pass laws TO prevent the sale OF
ell 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
stantially the same a. the Consultation OF
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
moro limited ems It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a . means Of raising rev
enue were alone within tho contemplation
Of tho trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enue. and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended to be limited TO lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
q mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized BY the Legislature for the b~ns.
at Of colleges. for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges, for the improve
msnt Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitals, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. All
these we're clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed st 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 DO
done that good might follow. and upon the
moro oogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely TO result from
IL. The promotion Of the hne arts 10 nm
doubtedly . c~ommendsble object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In ia
favor on that ground. =
The intention Of the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was 70 forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries -
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and BY requiring the Legis.
laturs 10 pass laws 70 prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets, TO put an end TO all
such distributions Of money or goods BY
lot or chance - had theretofors been for.
hidden by statute under the name OF
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" we're inserted for the purpose OF
preventing the Legislature from authoriz
Ing public lotteries asa means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 70 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly I'M.
tensble. No authority has been produced
In it, support and We are satis6ed that
mono can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
stitution the last sentence is - important
- the first.