Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-08-05

lie Q lottery, and 70 auow the SAFE ot iot'
tory tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of the Constitution. II would
be . perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution TO say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries. and was BY it, trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
volving the State In y systom 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 - . Limitation Of power
10 prevent the State, a. Q State, from, on.
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 TO authorize private
parties 70 conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In the informs'
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 70
the debates OF the Constitutional Conven.
ton In California upon the adoption OF .
provision In the Constitution OF that State
identical with ours. It 10 not claimed
hat these debates have the weight OF .
judicial decision, but that 10 10 proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt - 70 the
intention Of the trainers OF the Constitu.
ton. The remarks OF the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question ct 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 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-
tons you will And this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution. but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, IL has been introduced. In the
| old Consultation 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 Sc
| rious embarrassment TO the State Govern
ment itself. Tho result 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils OF the lottery systom that
tho Convention OF Now York, In 1876, In.
serted . clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution lsee Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and tho sale Of lot.
terry 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"
Tho language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
tiols I Of tho Constitution Of 1916, refer
red 70 by Mr.. Hslleok Is q follows "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO 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 for
the Art Union, Is II Is here, that the Con.
stitntion was only intended TO prevent tho
mischievous practice Of raising 0 revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
aud In this country, and that the prohibi.
tons OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. Ho referred
TO the fact, a. do counsel here, that "from
l709 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred 10 the debates OF the Consti-
tutional Convention Of 1921, for tho pur-
pose Of showing that " public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes as . 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 be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
ell lottery tickets within this State except
Il L. lnss-ta. slra.Au NenvilaI Tor hu Lac ~
The Court Of Appeals In referring to this
stsntislly the same a. the Constitution OF
1886, 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 II In .
moro limited sense It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizos % . means OF raising rev.
epuo were alono within tho contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have mover 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.
sting that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized BY the Legislature for the bene-
at Of colleges, for tho making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for tho improve
msnt Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally c~ommendsble and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. It was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogsnt practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbslAnced In tho
aggregate any good likely TO result from
It,. The promotion Of the 1ne arts 10 IN.
doubtedly . commendable object, bot the
prohibition contains NO exception In its
favor on that ground. q
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.
lsturs 70 pass laws 70 prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets, to put an end 10 all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under the name Of
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
ing public lotteries - . means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. 10 wholly nm.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In ih support and We are aatisied that
none can bs found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
s~titution the last sentence is ~ important
% the first.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
intended BY the use OF the words: No
lottery shall DO authorized BY this State"
to only limit tho legislative power to pub
lilo lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by tho 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
show that Il was not intended that any
lottery should be authorized By this State