Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-03

II has the essential elements and attri.
butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. II 10 lottery within the dshn.
ition given In the dictionaries; IL Ia lot.
tery according 70 the ordinary acoeptatiou
of that word /; IL 10 Q lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of thi.
Snts In tho "Act to prohibit lotteries u
Stat, 1878, 1851; 10 Il lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con-
stitutlon.
Second the Act approved March Q,
1881, CONSTITUTIONAL
This question Il - clear and plain 70
our minds a the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution Il sus'
c<ptible Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall bs authorized BY this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
bs allowed" Const.. Art. ~. Seo. ~.
The Act In question attempts to autnor'
iSe q lottery, and 70 allow the sale Of lot
terry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
proyision 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 its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from 10.
vol wing the State In Q 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-
gazing 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 10 authorize private
parties to conduct and carry on lottery
Of the character specified In the informa'
ton.
In support OF this 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 the weight OF .
Judicial decision, but that 10 is proper to
examine them In case OF doubt ~ 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 a. 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 10 In
the provision that was adopted
in California. Mr.. Hslleck. 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 hnd this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitutional ,'but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York. 70 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 Ia ruin, but was the o,cssion Of Sc
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 70 clearly estab.
lished the evils of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1915. In.
serted clause In the very first article of
the new Consultation SEQ Section l0l
lotteries aud the sale OF lot.
trry tickets. Il 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 1876. refer
red TO by Mr.. Hslleck 10 - follows "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
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, 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
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, ss do counsel here, that "from
1903 to 1924 public lotteries were author
lied at every session OF Parliament" DE
slso referred to the debates Of the Consti'
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur'
pose Of showing that" "publio lotteries Tor
pecuniary prizes a. . means Of raising
revenue we're alone within the contempla.
tion Of that body"
The Constitution OF 1921 10 In these
words: mo lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis
laturs shall pass laws to prevent the sale oi
all lottery tickets within this State except
in lotteries already provided for by law.