Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-21

terry tickets In this State In direct viola-
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. II would
be . perversion Of the language Of the Con.
stitution 10 say that tho 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 State In . system Of public
lotteries Is Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. . limitation Of power
10 prevent tho State, a. 0 State, from en-.
gazing In public lotteries for tho 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 10
the debates OF the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of q
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. II 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF q
lQaiGieA o0SAeAVhl WV taob ~ - PE0RSk w
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 at issue. They are Is much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General Is 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.. Hslleck, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of tho. 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 the occasion Of So
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 80 clearly estab-
lished tho evils Of tho lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1876, In.
serted . clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him . .
that this prohibition was one Of tho best
that could be inserted In tho article limit.
ing tho powers Of the legislature"
The language Of tho 10th Section Of Ar
ttnta 4 ~ tta Nopotttnktao ~ IQlC rAfar-
red 10 by Mr.. Halleck Is a. follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any salo OF lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors OF tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra. IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as u Is hero, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising 0 revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years in full vigor both in England
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
tons OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, a. do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1894 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to tho debates Of the Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that " public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes Is Q means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla.
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and tho Legis.
lature shall pass laws TO prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
Tho Court Of Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which II declared to DO sub
stantially the Same IS tho Constitution OF
1876, said: "This prohibition Is general.
1t must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In Q
moro limited sense. 1t was urged upon
tho argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes as Q means Of raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have mover 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 to be limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
Q mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene.
ut Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for tho improve
ment Of ferries. for tho erection OF hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendablo and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but u that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalAnced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. The promotion Of rhe fine arts Is un-
doubtedly o commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground. =
The intention Of the trainers Of tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any time previously been author
iLcu W ibWs buu W foquitinb tho AebiS-
laturo to pass laws TO prevent the sale OF
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 the nam Of
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries as . means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended TO prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly un-
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and We are satisfied that
mono can BIO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
.stitution the last sentence 10 % important
as the first.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by tho use Of the words: "No
shall be authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub
lie lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
tence. "Nor shall tho sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
that IL was not intended that anv