Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-29

terry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of tho plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. It would
be o perversion Of tho language OF the Con-
stitution to say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and WA by its trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In
volving tho State in Q system OF public
lotteries As Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. o limitation Of power
10 prevent the State, a. o State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for tho purpose
OF raising meant 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 0 lottery
Of the character specified in the informs.
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of Q
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 II is proper TO
examine them In case OF doubt as TO the
intention 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 as 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 wa 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 tho course Of his argument,
said : "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tons you will find this clause. II 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, 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 Mcintyre,
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin. but was the occasion OF So
rious embarrassment 10 the State Govern
ment itself. The result so clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York. In 1886, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article OF
tho new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. It appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit
ing tho powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar.
ticle l OF the Constitution Of 1916, refer.
red TO by Mr.. HAlleck Is Is follows /: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors OF tho Almshouse vs.,
American Art Union, supra, IL was con-
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel fol
the Art Union, as IL 10 bore, that the Con
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising Q revenue
by public lotteries, which had been fol
many years in full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that tho prohibit
tions OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
~ tho fact. as do counsel hero, that ''fron
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author
lied ct every session Of Parliament" HI
also referred to the debates Of the Consti
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur
pose OF showing that public lotteries fol
pecuniary prizes as Q means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempla
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is In thes,
words: "No lottery shall hereafter b,
authorized In this State, and tho Legis
lature shall pass laws to prevent tho sale o,
all lottery tickets within this State excep'
In lotteries already provided for by law
The Court Of Appeals In referring TO thii
Constitution, which IL declared to DO sub
stantially tho same o. the Constitution Of
1876, said: "This prohibition 10 general,
II must be held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts
factory reason for understanding II In Q
moro limited sense. 1t was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc.
cuniary prizes as Q means OF raising rev.
enuo were alone within tho contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for tho purpose Of general rev
enue, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In
tended TO DO limited TO lotteries for tina,
object. This would have been restraining
o mischief which did not exist, and toler'
ating that which did. Lotteries had beer
authorized by the Legislature for the bene'
ct Of colleges, for the making OF roads, fol
the building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable and beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition
The prohibition was not aimed at tho OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but a. that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. It was founded or
tho moral principle that evil should not b
done that good might follow. and upon the
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind oil
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
II. Tho promotion OF tho fne arts Ia un'
doubtedly 0 commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In It'd
favor on that ground. . 4
Tho intention Of the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries ii
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
lature to pass laws TO prevent the sale o.
all lottery tickets, TO put an end to al
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance o. had heretofore been for.
hidden by statuto under the name oil
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries as Q means OF raising
revenue. and that tho provision was moi
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, Is wholly un.
tenablo. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satis6ed that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence y ss important
% the FIRST.
II the trainers OF tho Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub.
lilo lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall the sale OF lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
shov that n WAS mt intended that aDv