Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-24

provision OF tho Constitution. II would
be Q perversion OF the language Of the Con-
stitution TO say that the Act Il valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution docs not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by it, trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from 10
volving tho State In . system Of public
lotteries a. . 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 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 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 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 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF .
judicial decision, but that IL II proper 70
examine them In case OF doubt % 10 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu-
ton. Tho remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question ct issue. They are - 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.. Halleok, who was In
l..a- kko aIa-ktn1 ~ Aka IakkaRU nr0-
vision, In the course OF his argument,
said /: "In nearly all the new Constitu.
tons you will find this clause. II 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 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 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1886, In.
serted o clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution [see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot
terry tickets. 1t appeared TO him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of tho Legislature"
The language Of tho 10th Section Of Ar
ticle l Of the Consultation Of 1876, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is a. 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 was con-
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, Is IL 10 here, that the Con-
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous practice OF raising . evenu
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that tho prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. Ho referred
to the fact. as do counsel here, that 'from
1909 10 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session OF Parliament" He
also referred TO the debates OF tho Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that Z" public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes as . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the oontempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1891 is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorised In this State, and the Legis.
lsture shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale Of
oil lottery tickets within this State except
in lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court OF Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which IL declared to be sub
stantially the Same - tho Constitution Of
1886, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held to embrace oil lotteries,
unless there DO somo very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In .
more limited sense. II was urged upon
tho argument that public lotteries for pe-
cuniary prizes a. Q means Of raising rov.
enue 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 thoro 10 therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was In.
tended u DO limited TO lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
o 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 oommendable and beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed st the OBJ.
jeots for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. II was founded on
tho moral principle that evil should not DO
done that good might follow, and upon the
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly oyerbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion Of the Ane arts 10 IN.
doubtedly . ~commendablo object, but tho
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 a.
had ct any time previously been author
lied by law, and by requiring the Legis.
lature TO pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, TO put IN end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chancaAs had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under the name Of
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" wero inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authoriz'
Ing public lotteries o. . means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, Is wholly un.
tsnable. No authority has been produced
In its support and we are satisfed that
mono can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
~stitution the last sentence h as important
Is the first.
II tho trainers Of tho Constitution had
intended by tho use Of the words: mo
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub
lie lotteries, conducted aud managed solely
by the 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 Il was not intended that any
lottery should DO authorized by this State
for any purpose.
Tho words "by this State" a. used In
our Nonaiitntiou and tha worda 10 In this