Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-04-07

k0lI tAbAlN3 IA saA1 ~ Az.
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF tho Constitution. Il would
be . perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution to 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
yolving the State In Q system OF public
lotteries q q means Of raising money for
tho service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. . Limitation OF power
10 prevent tho State, % . 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 tho right 70 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 q
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 II ID proper to
examine them In case Of doubt a. to the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu.
tion. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are - much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General As they are In favor OF the respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti.
tuition Of New York was referred TO 10
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleck, who wal In
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said : "In nearly all the now Constitu.
lions you will find this clause. II was moi
contained In tho old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, II 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 Sc
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern
ment itself. The result 80 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1916, In.
serted . clause In the very FIRST article Of
the new Constitution [see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries aud the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. II appeared 10 him e
that this prohibition was ono OF tho best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle I Of the Consultation Of l846, refer
red TO by Mr.. Halleck IL as follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors OF tho Almshouso vs.
American Art Union, supra, IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, couhsel for
tho Art Union, as IL Is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 10 prevent the
mischlevous 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.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular OWL. He referred
to the fact, as do counsel hero, that 'from
100 TO 1924 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 . means OF raising
revenue wero slono 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 tho Lcgis.
laturo shall pass laws 10 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 1t declared to be sub
stantially the Same a. the Constitution OF
1916, said: "This prohibition Is general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be 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 % . meant 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 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In
tended TO DO 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.
ft 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 and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly ovorbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion Of tho Emo arts 10 un-
doubleday q commendable object. but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention OF the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly wal to forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries Is
had ut any timo previously been author
lied by law, and by requiring the Legis.
lsture 10 pass laws TO prevent tho sale Of
all lottery tickets, 70 put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance % had heretofore been for
hidden by statute undor the name OF
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authoriz.
Ing public lotteries asa means Of raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
intended To prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, IL wholly IN.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satisned that
mono can BIZ found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
stitution the last sentence II - important
a. tho first.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the Legislative power TO pub
lie lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by tho State for the purpose q raising
revenue, they would not have used tho
language they did In the concluding SEN
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
A~-- .Lx.II H. .sL~f-~l L.. All. 0A.A-