Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-09

toky boAoS ~ VILE ob4po IN 0lk6ct VlOiu.
ton OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. It would
DO . perversion Of tho language Of tho Con-
stitution to say that the Act Il 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.
volving the State In Q system OF public
lotteries as Q means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
that this constitutional provision
was only intended a. q Limitation OF power
to prevent the State, % O. State, from en-.
In public lotteries for the purpose
Of raising means for the general revenue
Of tho State. Hence they claim that the
State has the right TO authorize private
TO conduct and carry on Q 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. II ID not claimed
these debates have the weight OF Q
judicial decision, but that IL Ia 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 r a. much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General - they are In favor Of tho respon-
dents. The debates show that the Consti.
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.
In the course Of his argument,
said : "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tions you will find this clause. II was not
In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, whore 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
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. Tho result 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1876, In.
serted 0 clause In the very first article OF
tho new Constitution lseo Section l0l
lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared TO him 49,
that this prohibition was one Of the 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 10 Is follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO 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.
by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
tho Art Union, as II 10 here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended 10 prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
aud In this country, aud that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
this particular evil. Ho referred
to the fact, as do counsel here, 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 the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes ~ Q means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1891 Is In these
mo lottery shall hereafter be
In this State, and tho Legis.
lature shall pass laws 70 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
stantially the same a. the Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition lie general.
II must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts
reason for understanding IL In .
limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes % Q means OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
OF the trainers Of the Constitution. But
have never 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.
tended TO DO limited to lotteries for that
This would have beon restraining
o mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
by the Legislature for tho bene.
at OF colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges, for tho improve
ment Of ferries. for tho erection Of hos.
pitfalls. and for various other purposes
commendable aud beneficial. All
were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but q that particular mode OF accom-
plishing such objects. II was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon tho
cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent or this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
II. Tho promotion Of the fne arts 10 un-
doubtedly o commendable object, but the
contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of the trainers Of tho Con-
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid the
granting Of any such lotteries As
had OF any time previously been author.
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
lature 10 pass laws to prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, 10 put an end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for.
by statute under the name OF
lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries as Q means OF raising
rovenue. and that the provision was not
10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly I'M.
No authority has been produced
In Its support and We arc satisfied that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
the last sentence 10 - important
Is the first.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
by tho use Of the words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
only limit the legislative power to pub
10 lotteries, conducted and managed solely
~ the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue. they would not have used tho
language they did IN the concluding sem
ence. "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
Ito DO allowed" These words clearly
how that II was not intended that any