Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-15

tefy Ncke1 IN tnis ptAte IN direct VIOLA
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF tho Constitution. It would
DO . perversion Of the language OF tho Con-
stitution TO say that tho Act Is valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by Its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
,yolving the State In . system OF public
lotteries a. Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended % Q Limitation OF power
TO prevent the 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 to conduct and carry on . lottery
Of tho character specified in tho Informs
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of o
provision In tho Constitution OF that State
identical with ours. Il IL not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of o
Judicial decision, but that II 10 proper to
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 at issue. They are Is 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.. 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.
tons you will find this clause. It 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 tho
State In ruin, but was the occasion Of 80.
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 80 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of Now York, In 1876, in.
serted o clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution Isee 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 the 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 TO by Mr.. Halleck Is as follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra. 1t was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as 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 the prohibi.
tions OF the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact. a. do counsel here, that ''from
l709 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at 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 a. Q 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 DO
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"
The Court Of Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which II declared to DO sub
stantially the same as tho Constitution OF
1876, said: "This prohibition IL general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO somo very clever and salts
factory reason for understanding IL In .
moro limited sense. 1t was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes as . means Of raising rev.
n ue were alone within tho contemplation
OF tho trainers OF the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for tho purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there Is therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was in.
tended to 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
tho building Of bridges, for tho improve
ment OF ferries. for tho erection OF hos.
pitfalls. and for various other purposes
equally commendablo aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not DO
done that good might follow, and upon tho
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pcrnicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. The promotion Of the fine arts is UNI
doubtedly Q commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground. =
Tho intention Of tho trainers Of tho Con-
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had ct any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
to pass laws to 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 the name OF
lotteries"
Tho argument that tho words "by this
were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authoriz.