Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-25

terry ttckets In tni1 otato IN direct Viola
ton Of tho plain letter and spirit Of THU
provision OF the Constitution. It would
be q perversion Of the language Of the Con.
stitution to say that the Act IL valid.
Respondents. however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by Its trainers intended
only to prevent tho Legislature from In.
yolving the State In Q System Of public
lotteries as . 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
70 prevent tho State, a. Q State, from en-
gazing In public lotteries for tho 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 informa'
ton.
In support OF this position they refer "a
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 q
judicial decisisn, bat that II 10 proper to
examine them In case Of doubt % to the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu.
tion. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are a. 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 10 In
discussing the provision that wal adopted
In California. Mr.. Hslleck, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In tho course Of his argument,
said "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tons you will find this clause. 1t was 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 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 &C.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 80 clearly estab-
lished tho evils Of the lottery system that
tho Convention Of New York, In 1876, In.
serted q clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution Isee Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the salo Of lot
terry tickets. It 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 1886, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is a. follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In the Governors Of tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, II was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as II 10 here, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising Q revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country. aud that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
TO the fact. as do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at overy 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 % o means Of raising
revenue were alono within the 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 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 the same a. the Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held to 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 as . means OF raising rev.
nue. were alone within tho contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
onue. and there Is therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was in
tended to be 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.
ut OF colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
ment Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable aud beneficial. AL
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at tho OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but at 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 the
more cogcnt practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion OF tho tine arts Is I'M
doubtedly 0 ~commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of the 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 tho Legis.
laturo to pass laws to prevent tho 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
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries AZ o means Of raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
intended to prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly un-
tenable. 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 h a. important
a. the first.
II tho trainers OF the Constitution had
intended by tho use Of tho words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit tho legislative power TO pub
lie 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 sem
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
should DO authorized by this State
for any purpose.