Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-28

u0n OF INC pam lotper eno eplrit Of I'M
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
Be . perversion Of the language Of the Con
stitution to say that the Act Il valid.
Respondents, however, contend that thu
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by It, trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
volving tho State In . system Of public
lotteries a. Q means Of raising money fol
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended 20 . limitation OF power
10 prevent the State. a. . 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 to conduct and carry on Q lottery
Of the character specified In the informa'
ton.
In support OF this position they refer 70
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 {
judicial decision, but that II II proper 10
examine them In case Of doubt a 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 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 to IN
discussing the provision that was adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleck, who wa In
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said : "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tons you will dnd this clause. II was NOT
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 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
State In ruin. but was the occasion Of So
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 1896, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. It appeared to him .
that this prohibition was one OF tho best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar.
ticle I OF tho Constitution OF 1876. refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck IL a. follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be 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 0'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as IL Ia here, that the Con-
stitution was only intended TO prevent tho
mlschievous practice OF raising 0 revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular OWL. He referred
to the fact, a. do counsel hero, that "from
1909 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 tho pur-
pose OF showing that " public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes as Q 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 Legis.
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 IL declared 10 DO sub
stantially tho same as tho Constitution Of
1886, said: "This prohibition 70 general.
II must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 10 In .
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a. Q means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of tho trainers Of tho Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enue. and 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
o mischief which did not exist, and tolor.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene-
at Of colleges, for tho making Of roads, for
tho building Of bridges, for the improve
ment 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 ct tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. II wal founded or
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
1t. Tho promotion OF tho fine arts Is I'M
doubleday o commendable object, but tho
prohibition contains NO exception In its
favor on that ground.
Tho intention Of the trainers Of tho Con-
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had OF any timo previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tha Legis-
lature to pass laws 10 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, to put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance as had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho name OF
private lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
ing public lotteries as Q means Of raising
and that the provision was not
intended to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly In
tenablo. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satisfied that
can be found.
In constituting this provision OF tho Con.
stitution the last sentence Is % important
a. the first.
II the trainers Of tho Constitution had
intended by the uso Of the words: mo
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 In the concluding ser.
tence. "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that 1t wa not intended that any
should DO authorized by this State