Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-24

Il has the essential elements and attri.
butes Of lottery; the distribution Of prizes
By chance. II IL lottery within the dsnn-
ition given In the dictionaries; 10 IL lot.
terry according 10 the ordinary acoeptation
Of that word II 10 lottery within the
terms specified by the Legislature Of this
State In tho "Act To prohibit lotteries I"
IStst.. 1878, 1851; IL 10 lottery within the
meaning Of that word - used In the Con.
sutution.
Second ia the Act approved March o,
1881. constitutionalf
This question II - clear and plain 70
our minds q the one already decided. It
will not admit Of any reasonable doubt.
The Language Of the Constitution 10 sus.
oeptible Of bat one meaning. There 10 no
room for construction. Nothing upon
which any real or substantial argument
can be based.
"No lottsry shall bs authorised By this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottsry tickets
b allowed" (Const., Art. Nv. Sec. n. ]
The Act In question attempts 70 suthor.
ise Lottery, and 10 allow the sale Of lot.
tsry tickets In this State In direct viola
tion Of The plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF fhs Consultation. IL would
b perversion Of the language Of tho 0on-
stitution 70 say that the Act Il valid.
Rsspoadsnts. however. contend that the
Consultation "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was BY its frsmers intended
only 70 prevent the LsgislatuFe from In
volving the State In . system OF public
lotteries q Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or. in other
words, that this constitutional provision
vas only intended - Limitation OF power
70 prevent the State. - . State, from en-
gazing In public lottsries for the purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Hence they claim that the
State has the right 70 suthoriss private
parties 10 conduot and carry on lottery
Of the character specified In the informs.
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 Consultation OF that State
Identical with ours. Il II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of 1
Judicial decision, bat that IL 10 proper 10
sxsmins them In case OF doubt a 70 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu-
tion. The remarks Of the different mem
bers shed but little light upon the real
question d issue. They are - much In
favor Of the position taken By the Attorney
General q they are In favor Of the respon-
dents. The debates show that the Consti-
tuition Of New York was referred 10 in
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Hslleck. who was in
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision. In the course OF bis srgument.
said "In nearly all the new Constitu-
lions you will dnd this olsuss. Il was not
contained In the old Constitution. but In
most Gases. 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 Hclntyre.
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin. but was the occasion Of 90
rious embarrassment 10 the State Govern
ment itself. The result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. 10 l8i6, In.
serted clause In the very frst article Of
the new Constitution see 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 the 10th Section OF Ar
ticls Of the Constitution Of i8i6. refer
red 10 by Mr.. Halleok II - follows: "Nor
shsll any lottery hereafter bs authorised
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouss ~.
American Art Union, supra. IL was con.
tended BY Charles O'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, a. II 10 here, that the Con.
stitution WAS only intended TO prevent the
mischIevous 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.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
70 the fact, a. do counsel here, that "from
1903 to 1874 public lotteries were author.
ized at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred TO the debates Of the 'Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1871, for the pur.
pose Of showing that "public lottsries for
pecuniary prizes - Q means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla.
ton Of that body" 49,.
The Constitution Of 1891 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State. and the Legis.
lsturs shall pass laws 20 prevent the sale OF
al lottery tickets within this Btste except
In lotteries already provided for BY law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 70 this
Constitution. which IL declared to be sub.
stsntially the same - the Constitution Of
lsi6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
Il must be held TO embrace all lotteries.
unless thsre be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 10 in .
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes % Q means Of raising rev.
snus 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.
snue, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
landed TO be limited 70 lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
mischief which did not exist, and toler.
stlng that which did. Lotteries had besn
authorized BY the Legislsturs for the b-ns.
At Of colleges, for the making OF roads, Tor
the building Of bridges. FOR the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection OF hos
pitals, and for various other purposes
equally oommendabls and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition Was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author
issd, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not b
done that good might follow. and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious Kind OF
gambling greatly oyerbalanced 10 the