Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-06

terry tickets In this STATE In direct viola
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. It would
be Q perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution to say that tho Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution docs not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by Its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving tho State in . system Of public
lotteries q o means Of raising money for
the service Of the state,'' or, In other
words. that this constitutional provision
was only intended - . Limitation OF power
to prevent tho 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 tho right to authorize private
parties 10 conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In tie 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. Il II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision, but that II 10 proper to
examine them In case OF doubt % 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 Of issue. They are IS much In
favor Of the position taken BY the Attorney
General a they are In favor Of the respon.
dents. Tho debates show that the Consti-
tuition OF New York was referred TO In
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleok, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In tho curse Of his argument,
said /: "In nearly all the new Constitu-
lions you will fnd this clause. Il was not
contained In the 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 tho 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
rious embarrassment to the State Govern
ment itself. Tho result 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
tho Convention Of New York, In 1886, In.
serted . clause In tho very first article Of
tho new Constitution [see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. II appeared TO him y
that this prohibition wa one OF the best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle I Of the Constitution Of 1876, refer
red 10 by Mr.. Halleok Is Is follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, Is IL IL here, that tho Con-
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mlschievous 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
to tho fact, a. do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1894 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred TO the debates OF tho Consti-
t~utional Convention Of 1921, for the pur-
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes Is . 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 the Legis.
laturo 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 be sub
stsntially the same Is tho Constitution OF
18i8, said: "This prohibition is general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries.
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In .
moro limited sense. It was urged upon
the 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, aud there is therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended TO DO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
. mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did,. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the beno.
ft Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building OF bridges, for the improve
mont OF ferries. for tho 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 at tho OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author.
plishing such objects. It was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon tho
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion Of the fine arts Is I'M.
doubtedly . c~ommendable 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 -
had at any time previously been author.
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
laturo to pass laws to prevent tho sale OF
all lottery tickets, to put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under tho name Of
private lotteries"
Ths 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. aud that tho provision was not
intended TO prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, is wholly IN.
tensble. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satisfied that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
.stitution the last sentence h a. important
a. tho 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 tho legislative power TO pub.
lilo lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did III the concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that u was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized BY this State