Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-22

~ - sa.H - NV ~ NsAAa
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by its trainers intended
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In
volving the State In . systom Of public
lotteries a. Q means Of raising money for
the service Of tho State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. . Limitation Of power
to prevent the State, % o State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for tho purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Henoe thoy claim that the
State has the right TO authorize private
parties 10 conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In tho informa.
ton.
In support Of this position thsy 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 II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of Q
judicial decision, but that II Ii proper to
examine them In case Of doubt % 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 Ut 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 TO In
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleok, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In tho course Of his argument,
said /: "In nearly all the now Constitu.
lions you will find this clause. II was not
contained In tho old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, II 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 tho occasion OF 30.
rious embarrassment 10 the State Govern
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estab.
lished tho evils Of tho lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In l8i6, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
tho new Constitution Iseo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. It appeared 10 him q =
that this prohibition was inc OF the best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers Of the legislature"
Tho language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle / OF tho Constitution Of 1876, refer
red 10 by Mr.. Halleck Ia as follows /: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with
In this State"
In the Governors OF the Almshouse vs,
American Art Union, supra, II was CON
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel fol-
the Art Union, Is IL 10 hero, that tho Con
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising o revenue
by public lotteries, which had been fol
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that the prohibi'
tions Of the Constitution woro only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, as do counsel hero, that 'from
l709 to 1924 public lotteries were author
lied at every session OF Parliament" he
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 . means OF raising
revenue wore alono within the contempla'
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter bt
authorized In this State, and the Legis'
laturo shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale oil
oil lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which IL declared TO be sub
s~tantiAlly the same as tho Constitution oil
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clovor and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In q
moro limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes % . means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of tho trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have mover been created within
this State for the purpose OF general rev.
enue, and there IL therefore nc ground for
believing that the prohibition was In
tended to DO limited 10 lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
0 mischief which did not exist, and toler'
ating that which did. Lotteries had beer
authorized by the Legislature for the bene'
at Of colleges, for the making Of roads, fol
tho building OF bridges, for tho improve
ment Of ferries, for the erection OF hos
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within tho prohibition,
Tho prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. It was founded on
tho moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the OWL
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanccd In the
aggregate any good likely TO result from
It. The promotion OF the fine arts Is un.
doubleday o commendable object, but the
prohibition contains NO exception In its
favor on that ground. .
The intention OF the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had ct any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
laturo TO pass laws TO prevent the sale Of
all lottery tickets, TO put IN end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance % had heretofore been for.
biddon by statute under the name OF
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries % Q means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, Is wholly un.
tenablo. No authority has been produced
In Its support and We are satisfied that
mono can DO found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
~stitution the last sentence 10 ss important
a. the first.
II the trainers OF tho Constitution had
intended by the use Of tho words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub.
lic lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In tho concluding sem
tence, "Nor shall tho sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
lottery should be authorized by this State
for any purpose.
The words "by this State" as used In
our Constitution. and the words In this
State" "or within this State,"a Is used