Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-02

IL has the e6eonuAi elomouu buu stui'
butes OF Q lottery; the distribution OF prizes
by chance. Iris lottery within the dsnn.
ition given In the dictionaries; (; IL 10 lot.
terry according TO the ordinary sooeptation
Of that word Il 10 . lottery within the
terms specified BY the Legislature OF this
State In the "Act to prohibit lotteries "
IStat.. 1878, 1851; IL 10 lottsry within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con-
sutution. -.
sscond-Is the Act approved March ..
1881, constitutionalf
This question Il - clear and plain 70
our minds - the one already decided. II
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The language Of the Constitution II sus.
csptibls 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 authorised BY this
State. nor shall the sale Of lottery ticket:
bs allowed" [Const., Art. ~. Seo. -.
The Act In question attempts to author
ise q lottery. and 10 allow the sale Of lot
tery Tickets In this State In direct viols.
ton Of the plain lsttsr and spirit Of this
provision OF the Consultation. II would
30 q perversion OF the language Of the Con-
sutution 70 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 In
volving the Stats In . system OF public
lotteries a. Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or. In other
words. that this oonstitunonal provision
was only intended a. limitation q power
10 prevent the State. a. . state' from en-
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
Of raising means for the general revenue
OF the State. Hence they claim snat the
State has the right TO authoriEs private
parties 10 conduct and carry on lottery
Of the character specified In the Informs
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
the debates OF the Constitutionsi Conven'
ton 10 California upon tue adopuon OF =
provision 10 the Constitution OF tnat Stats
identical with ours. IL 70 NOS CLAIMED
that these debates have tue weignt OF .
Judicial decision, but that u 10 proper 70
examine them In case OF douot % 70 tne
Intention Of the trainers OF the Constitu'
ton. The remarks OF the different mem
bera shed but little light upon the real
question st issue. They are % 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 10 In
discusslug the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleck, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of tho lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
aid "Iu nearly ali the new Constitu.
lions you will And this clause. Il Was not
contained iu the old Consti tiou, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York, TO which
reference has been made In tho course Of
debate, NO prohibition was inserted.
MANY gentlemen present would remember
the famous case Of Yates and McIutyre.
vhich Involved mot only individuals Of the
stats In ruin. but vss the OCCASION Of %.
rious embarrsssmeptt 10 the State Govern.
ment itsslf. The result 40 clearly estab-
Ijshsd ,be aviis M tbe lottery systsm that
,ha Conysn,ion of Nav YORK. in lst6. IN.
ssrted . ol,uso in the very first article Of
the new Consultation [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the salo Of lot.
irry 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
tiols Of tue Constitution Of 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Hsllsck 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 Aimshouss Vs.
American Art Union. supra IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel Tor
the Art Union. ~ II 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising revenue
by public lotteries, which bad been Tor
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. de referred
~ the fact, - do counsel here, thas IRON
l709 to 1874 public lotteries were autnor'
lied at every session Oh farhament. ne
also referred to the debates OF the Consu'
tutional Convention OF iszi' LOT tne pur'
pose Of showing thst Puoiio iot.eries ior
pecuniary prizes as = means Oh RAISING
revenue were alone witnin tne oontemPia'
ton OF that body; ,so, :, l., IT,.
The Consutuuon Oh lSIi IN tness
words: mo lottery snan neIeaet 20
authorized In this state. and tns Lsgs;,
l.turs shall pass Jaws 70 pteIsps u .ne ssie , .,
AL lottery ueke's "'nIu tuis Ss I.ssP. b:
IN lotteries sirsaay Provioea ~, W su w..
Ihe court Oh Appess =, ~ ,.sd s ~ w " nh. 'In.
Cousttuuoh' wnicn l" ae0,.leo .s " ~ ',
stantiaiiy the same ~ tne Sonsn'u.lon "
lS46, said: rms pronioiton ~ ssnei.'
II must be held 70 emorace al lot~I.s'
unless there Dc some very cie.sl sna si.s.
factory reason ior undsrsaau.ns ,aga a. ,nan ~