Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-27

tory tickets In this State In direct viols-
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be Q perversion Of the language Of the Con-
shtution TO say that the Act e valid.
Respondents, however. contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and Wa by IL trainers intsnded
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
volying the State In Q system OF public
lotteries % Q means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended ~ . Limitation Of power
10 prevent the State, - 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 the informs'
ton.
In support Of this position they refer Ia
the debates Of tho Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of q
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. Il II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of q
judicial decision, but that II II proper TO
examine them In case OF doubt a 10 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 a. 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 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 hnd this clause. II 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
which involved not only individuals Of the
State In ruin, but was tho occasion OF 30.
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, 10 1916, In.
serted . clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared 10 him . =
that this prohibition was one 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 l OF tho Consultation Of 1916, refor-
red to 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 tho Governors Of the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra. IL wa con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as II is here, that tho Con-
stitution was only intended 10 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. He referred
70 tho fact, as do counsel here. that "from
l709 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 a. . means Of raising
revenue were alone within tho contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1891 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and tho Lcgis.
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 IL declared to DO sub
stantially the same a. tho Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must be held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
moro limited ems Il was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes As Q means OF raising rev.
emf were alone within the 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 IL therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was in
tended to DO limited to lotteries for that
OUlcUb 4utb WOulu ubVo DCCh Acod oiuih6
. 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 and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut the OBJ.
jeots 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 overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. The promotion Of the fne arts 10 un.
doubtedly 9 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 tho
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the 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"
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
ing public lotteries a. 0 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 AID we arc satisAed that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
stitution the last sentence h a. important
Is the first.
II the trainers OF the Constitution had
intended by tho use Of tho 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 Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In tho concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized by this State