Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-12


by chance. II 10 lottery within the dsfn.
ition given In the dictionaries; IL 10 . lot.
terry according to the ordinary acceptstion
Of that word 1t 10 . lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature OF this
State In the "Act TO prohibit lotteries "
TStst., 1873, 1861; 10 10 Q lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used in the Con-
stitution.
sscond-Is the Act approved March o.
1881. CONSTITUTIONAL
This question is - olsar and plain 70
our minds - the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution 10 sus-
ceptibls Of but one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can bs based.
mo lottery shall be authorised By this
State, nor shall tho sale OF lottery tickets
be allowed" (Const.. Art, ~. Seo. ~.
The Act In question attempts 70 author
ise lottery. and 10 allow the sale OF lot.
tery tickets In this State In direct ytola.
ton Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision Of the Constitution. Il would
be pervsrsion Of the language OF the Con-
s.itution 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 70 prevent the Legislature from In.
yolying the State In Q system OF public
lottsries a. q 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
10 prevent the State, - Q State, 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 TO authorize private
parties TO 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.
ton In California upon the adoption Of .
provision In the Constitution OF that State
identical with ours. It II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision, but that Il 10 proper TO
examine them in case OF doubt a TO the
intention Of the trainers OF the Constitu.
ton. Tho 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 a. they are In favor Of the respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred TO 10
discussing the. provision that was adopted
in Californis. Mr.. Hslleok. 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 Constitution. 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 In ruin, but was the occasion OF %.
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1886. In.
serted clause In the very drst article OF
the new Constitution sec 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 be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of tho 10th Section OF Ar
ticle OF the Constitution OF l846. refer.
red 70 by Mr.. Halleek 10 a. follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be- authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with
in this State"
In tho Governors Of the Almshouse ~.
American Art Union, supra, IL was CON.
tended BY Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. 10 10 here. that the Con.
stitution was only Intended 10 prevent the
mischisvous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
aud in this country. aud that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, a. do counsel here, that "from
1909 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Consti.
tutionsl Convention Of 1871, for the pur.
pose Of showing that "publio lottsriss for
pecunisry prizes a. Q means Of raising
revenue we're alone within the contempla-
ion Of that body"
words: "No lottery shall hereafter bs
authorised In this State, and the Lsgis.
lsturs shall pass laws TO prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets within this ststs except
in lotteries already provided for by law"
The court Of Appeals In referring to this
Consultation, which 10 declared to be sub
stautially the same - the Constitution Of
lsi6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must DO held 10 embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II 10 .
more limited sense. II WAS urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cunisry prizes ~ Q means Of raising rev.
enue we're alone within the contemplation
Of the 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 10 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 brne.
at Of colleges, for the making OF roads, Tor
the building Of bridges. for the improve
msnt Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls. and for various other purposes
equally commendabls and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
ized, but at that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not BE-
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbslanced In the
snv oood 1ikalv 60 r.salt fr0un