Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-04

nfy hvhoS ~ tnis buAte IN uirect vl0i6-
ton OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. It would
be q perversion Of the language Of tho Con-
stitution to say that tho Act Il 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
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
10 prevent the State, as 0 State, from en-,
gazing In public lotteries for tho purpose
OF raising means for tho general revenue
Of the State. Hence they claim that the
State has the right to authorize private
parties to conduct and carry on Q 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 Californis 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 IL 10 proper to
examine them In case OF doubt % 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 ct issue. They are a 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 In
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleok, who was In
favor Of the adoption Of tho lottery pro-
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said "In nearly all the now Constitu-
lions you will find this clause. Il wa 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
the famous case OF Yates and Mcintyre,
which involved not only individuals Of tho
State In ruin, but was the occasion Of 30.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
m~entitself. The result so clearly estsb-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York, In 1916, In.
serted q clause In the worry first article Of
the new Constitution [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition was one Of tho 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 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is as 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. II was con
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
tho Art Union, Is IL Is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous 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 tho prohibi.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
~ tho fact, a. do counsel hero, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied Of every session OF Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Consti.
%tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes IS Q means Of raising
revenue wero alone within the contempla-
ton OF that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and tho Legis.
lsture shall pass laws to 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 IL declared to be sub
s~tantially the Same as the Constitution OF
1916, 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 II In 0
more limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for po-
~cuniary prizes a. Q means OF raising rev.
enuo were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose OF general row.
enue. and there IL therefore NJ ground for
believing that the prohibition was in.
tended to BIO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
0 mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene-
1t OF colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
mont Of ferries. for the erection OF hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendablo and beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ct the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
izod, but a. that particular mode OF accom-
tho 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
It. Tho promotion Of inc fine arts 10 un.
doubtedly Q commendable object. but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of tho trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had OF 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 IN end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under tho namo Of
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing the Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries as 0 means Of raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. is wholly un-
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we arc satisfied that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
.stitution the last sentence 10 as important
as the first.
II the trainers OF tho Constitution had
intended by the use OF the words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
TO only limit the Legislative power TO pub
lie lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by the State for tho purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall tho sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
that Il was not intended that any