Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-08
I, b.. The essential elements and attri.

butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
by chance. It 10 lottery within the dehn.
ition given In the dictionaries; F; IL 10 . lot.
terry according to the ordinary acceptation
Of that word II 10 . lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of thi.
State in tho "Act TO prohibit lotteries "
I Stat. 1873. 1861; Il 10 lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used in the CON.
stitutiou.
Second-Is the Act approved March o,
1881. constitutional
This question Is - clear and plain 70
our minds a. the one already decided. 1t
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution Is sus.
o<ptible Of but one meaning. There is no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based. -,
"No lottery shall be authorized By this
State. nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed" Const.. Art, ~. Bee. "a. ]
The Act In question attempts to author
ize . lottery. and 10 allow the sale Of lot.
terry tickets In this State In direct. viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit OF this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be perversion OF tho language OF the Con-
stitution to say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents. however. contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and wss BY its trainers intsnded
only to prevent the Legislature from in.
volving tho State In . 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 - Limitation OF power
TO prevent the State. ~ . 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 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 tho 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 II Is proper to
examine them in case OF doubt a. to the
Of the trainers OF the Constitu.
ton. Tho remarks Of the different mem
bcrs shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are as much in
favor Of the position taken by this Attorney
General a. they are in favor Of the respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti.
tuition Of New York was referred 10 10
tho provision 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 Oonstitu-
tions you will hnd this clause. 1t was not
10 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 sf Yates and Mcintyre,
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin. but WAS the o,casion OF Be-
rious embarrassment to the State Govern
ment itself. Tho result 80 clearly estsb-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York, in 1886, In.
serted clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution SEQ Section l0l
lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It 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 l OF the Constitution OF l8i6, refer.
red 10 by Mr. Hslleek 10 ~ follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse vs.
American Art Union, supra. It was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. 10 10 here, that the Con.
was only intended TO prevent the
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. 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 "publio lotteries for
prizes a. . means OF raising
revenue we're alono within the contempls-
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1871 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws 70 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets within this State except
in lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
which IL declared to be sub.
the same a. the Constitution OF
lS46, said: This prohibition 10 general.
II must be held to embrace all lotteries
unless there be some very clover and salts
factory reason for understanding u In .
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes - . means OF raising rev
enue were 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 ior
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended 10 be limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
a mischief which did not exist, and toler'
a,ing that which did. Lotteries had osen
authorized BY the Legislature for the bene.
at Of colleges, for tho making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitals, and for various other purposes
equally commsndable aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the oh.
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, 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 cosent practical reason that the evil