Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-18

ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF tho Constitution. It would
be q perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution to say that the Act IL valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by Its trainers intended
only to prevent tho Legislature from in
yolving tho State In Q system Of public
lotteries as Q means Of raising money for
the service OF tho State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended as . limitation Of power
To prevent the State, as 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 . 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 the adoption OF .
provision In the Constitution Of that State
identical with ours. II 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of Q
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. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question ct issue. They are as 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 In
discussing the 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 now Constitu.
tons you will find this clause. It was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, u 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 So
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 q clause In the very first article Of
the now Constitution [see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. II appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing tho powers Of the legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I OF tho Constitution Of 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Hslleck Is a. follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union. supra, II was cor.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as II IL here, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising Q 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. Ho referred
to the fact, As do counsel here, that 'from
1909 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 tho pur-
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes As o means OF raising
revenue were alone within tho contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution OF 1871 IL in these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and tho Lcgis.
laturo shall pass laws TO prevent the sale Of
all 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 Al tho Constitution Of
1876, said: "This prohibition IL general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In Q
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes a. . means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within tho 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 is therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was in.
tended 10 DO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
0 mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene-
at Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building OF bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries, for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within tho prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied. but NJ that particular mode OF accom-
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
tho moral principle that evil should not DO
done that good might follow, and upon the
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. Tho promotion OF tho fine arts 10 I'M
doubtedly o c~ommendablo 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 at any time previously. boon author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
lhturo " pass lhWb W prtNcut buo saio VI
all lottery tickets, TO put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance as had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho name Of
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authoriz.
ing public lotteries as Q means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly I'M
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and We arc satisfied that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con-
stitution the last sentence is ~ important
the first.
II the trainers OF the Constitution had
intended by tho use OF the words: No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub
Ito lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by tho State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did III the concluding sen.
tence. "Nor shall the salo Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
should DO authorized by this State