Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-21

IL has the o0oontlu oiom0uu ma Atui'
butss Of q lottery; the distribution Of prizes
bv chance. Il 10 . lottery within the dsHn-
zion oiyen In the dictionaries; IL IL let
tery According 70 the ordinary soceptation
of that word Il IL . lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of this
State In ths "Act TO prohibit Lotteries
IStat., 1878, 1881; 10 10 q lottery within the
meaning Of that word a used In the Con.
stitution.
SHcoud-Is the Act approved March Q,
1881, constitutionL1
This question ID - clear and plain to
our minds A the one already decided. Il
viIl mot admit of sny rsssopsble doubt.
tn lsnvnsgs Of tbe Constitu ton 10 sus.
s.ntibIe Of Sut one meaning. There Ia NO
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottery shall be authorised BY this
6tsto. nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be Allowed" fConst.. Art, ". SEQ. "a.
The Act In question attempts TO author.
iss lottery, and 10 allow the sale Of lot.
tsry tiokets In this State In direct viols-
don Of the plain lsttsr and spirit Of this
proyision Of the Constitution. II would
70 perverulOu 0I tuo ieukuhBo VI tuo SS4-
stitution 10 ssy that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lottsrisa, and was BY its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the Stats In Q systsm Of public
lotteries a q means Of raising money for
The service OF the State" or, In other
words. that this constitutional provision
vas only intended a. q limitation Of power
TO prevent the State, - Q State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
Of rsising 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 lottsry
Of the character specified In the informa.
ton.
In support OF this position they refer TO
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven.
tion In California upop the adoption OF q
proyision in ths Oonstitution OF that State
identical with ours. II IL not claimed
tbst tbess debates have the weight Of q
judicial decision, bat that Il 10 proper to
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 at issue. They are a. much In
favor Of the position taken BY tue Attorney
General a. they are In favor Of the respon.
dents, The debates show that the Consti.
tntion Of New York was referred 70 In
Sisen,sing The proyisiou that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleck, 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 nnd 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 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 o,casion Of Sc
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result so 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 new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
tery tickets. 1t appeared to him
thrt this prohibition was one Of the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of ths 10th Section OF Ar.
ticls Of the Constitution Of l8a6. refer
red TO by Mr.. Halleok 70 - 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 0'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mlschievous 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.
tiops Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, ss do counsel here, that "from
l709 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session OF Parliament" He
ALSO referred TO the debates OF the Consti.
tutionsl Convention OF 1891, for the pur-
pose of showing that "public lotteries for
pecunisry prizes a. . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contemplA-
tion Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1891 is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter bo
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
isturs shsil pass lava to prevent the sale Of
ali lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
Tho Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Coustitution, which 10 declared to be sub
St.ntisily the Same as the Constitution Of
lsle. said: "This prQhibition 10 general.
Il must BE- held to embrace all lotteries.
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
more limited sense. Il was urged upon