Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-03

49, .@se N
terry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of tho Constitution. 1t would
be Q perversion OF the language Of the Con-
~stitution TO say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents. however, contend THAT tho
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries. and was by tn trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving the State In . system OF public
lotteries as Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended ss o Limitation Of power
10 prevent the State, as o State, from en-.
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Hence they claim that tho
State has tho right to authorize private
parties 10 conduct and carry on o 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 tho weight Of .
judicial decision, but that II is proper to
examine them In case OF doubt a. TO the
intention OF the trainers Of tho 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 as they arc In favor Of tho 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.. 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 Constitu.
lions you will find this clause. II was not
contained In tho old Constitution, but In
most cases, 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 Mcintyre,
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin, but was tho occasion OF So
rious embarrassment to tho State Govern
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished tho evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1916, In.
serted Q clause In tho very first article Of
the now Constitution lseo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition wal 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.
ticlo / Of the Constitution Of 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is as follows : 'Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors Of the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, IL wal con-
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
tho Art Union, as IL IL here, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising o revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years in full vigor both in England
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
lions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, a. do counsel hero, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied ut every session OF Parliament" Ho
also referred to tho debates Of the Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that I" public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. Q means OF raising
revenue were alone within tho contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is in these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
laturo shall pass laws to prevent the sale Of
oil lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court OF Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which 10 declared to DO sub
stantially the same as tho Constitution OF
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In o
moro limited sense. 1t was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a. Q means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within tho contemplation
OF tho 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 for
believing that the prohibition was in.
tended 10 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-
at Of colleges, for the 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 commendable and beneficial. All
these wero clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ct tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied, but u that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. II was founded on
tho moral principle that evil should not BIO
done that good might follow, and upon tho
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbahnced In tho
aggregate any good likely TO result from
1t. The promotion Of the fine arts Is un.
doubleday o commendablo object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of the trainers OF tho Con-
stitution undoubtedly was 10 forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any timo previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
lature 10 pass laws 70 prevent tho 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 namc Of
private lotteries"
The argument that the words by this
State ;, .wero inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
ing public lotteries asa means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, is wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and We are satisfied that
non can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
stitu,ion tho last sentence is as important
as the first.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery 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 tho
language they did In the concluding sem
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts be allowed" These words clearly
.l.- sI.a IA =. - GA.-I1 -A---