Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-31

s84 ~ eAAoW Nu0 HAl0 Oh AQk
tsry tickets In this State In direct viola.
ton Of the plain letter and spIrit al thia
provision OF tho Constitution. IL would
be Q perversion Of the language Of the Con.
stitution TO say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and wss BY ih trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving the State In . system Of public
lotteries ~ . means OF raising money for
the service OF the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. Q Limitation Of power
TO prevent the State, a. 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 informs.
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 II not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF q
judicial decision, but that II Il 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 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.
kuktan ~ Ma Vns1 49, -f--oI 40 L.
discussing the provision that was adopted
In Californis. 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 fnd 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, 70 which
reference has been made In the course OF
debate, NO prohibition was inserted.
Many gentlemen present would remember
tho 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. Tho result 80 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1916, In.
serted 0 clause In the very 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 mi OF the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Logislature."
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I Of the Consultation Of 1916, refer
redSto by Mr.. Hslleck 10 q follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors OF tho Almshouso vs..
American Art Union. supra, II was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, Is II 10 here, that tho Con-
stitution was only intended TO prevent tho
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.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, as do counsel here, that "irom
1909 TO 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied ct every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Consti-
tutional Convention Of 1891, for the pur-
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes as . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla.
fon Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1921 IL In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature 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
stsntially tho same a. tho Constitution Of
l8i6, said: "This prohibition Is general.
II must DO held 10 embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In .
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a. . means OF raising rev.
enue wero alone within the contemplation
OF the trainers OF the Constitution. But
lotteries have mover been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
touuCa w w AiLultCu W AuttSAASo iOA tdet
object. This would have been restraining
. 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 tho improve
ment 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.
lied, but Ut that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. It was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not DO
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 tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. Tho promotion Of the fine arts 10 un.
doubleday o commendablo object, but tho
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground. y
Tho intention OF the trainers OF tho Con.
.stitution undoubtedly was 10 forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries IS
had OF any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
lature to pass laws 10 prevent tho sale OF
all lottery tickets, 10 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"
The argument that tho words by this
wero inserted for the purpose OF
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries Is . means Of raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
intended TO prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. Is wholly IN.
No authority has been produced
In Its support and NO arc satisfied that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
stitution the last sentence Is - important
as the first.
II the trainers Of tho Constitution had
by the use Of the words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
10 only limit the legislative power to pub.
10 lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding SEN.
Ienco. "Nor shall the sale OF lottery tick
Dts DO allowed" These words clearly |
show that IL was not intended that any
should DO authorized by this State