Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-04-03

AAkkM IOIA~
tion Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision Of the Constitution. It would
DO Q perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution to say that tho Act ID valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by Its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving the State In Q system OF public
lotteries ~ 0 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. as . 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
to conduct and carry on . lottery
the character specified In the Informs.
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. It 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of Q
judicial decision, but that II is proper 10
examine them In case Of doubt as to the
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 as much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General as they are In favor Of tho respon.
dents. Tho debates show that the Consti.
Of New York was referred to In
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-
tons you will find 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, 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 So
rious embarrassment to tho State Govern
itself. Tho result 80 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of tho lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. In 1876, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution lsee Section 10l
lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was n Of tho best
could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle l OF tho Constitution Of 1886, refer
red to by Mr.. Halleck Is a. follows I. "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors Of the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union. supra, II was con.
tended by Charles o'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, as II is here, that tho 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 ofthe 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 ut every session OF Parliament" He
also referred to tho debates OF tho Consti.
tutional Convention OF 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. q means OF raising
revenue were slono within tho contempla.
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1921 Is in these
"No lottery shall hereafter be
In this State, and tho Legis.
lsturo 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 be sub
stantially tho same a. the Constitution OF
1916, said: "This prohibition Ia general.
II must DO held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
reason for understanding IL In 0
moro limited sense. 1t was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes as Q means Of raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of the 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.
TO be limited to lotteries for that
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 tho bene-
Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building OF bridges, for the improve
ment OF ferries. for the erection Of hos.
and for various other purposes
commendable aud beneficial. All
were clearly within tho prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the oh.
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
moro cogent practical reason that tho evil
on this ~pornicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
Il. Tho promotion Of tho fine arts Is un.
loubtedly 0 commendablo object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In its
on that ground.
Tho intention OF tho trainers OF tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid tho
granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
laturo to pass laws to prevent tho sale OF
Ill lottery tickets, to put an end to all
such distributions OF money or goods by
lot or chance a. had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under tho name OF
lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries a. Q means OF raising
revenue. and that tho provision was not
to prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, is wholly un.
No authority has been produced
Its support and we arc satisfied that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
ltitution tho last sentence is IS important
.s the first.
II tho trainers OF tho Constitution had
by the use Of the words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
only limit the legislative power to pub
10 lotteries, conducted and managed solely
BY tho State for tho purpose OF raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding sem
,ence. "Nor shall tho sale Of lottery tick
It's DO allowed" These words clearly
Ihow that 1t was not intended that any
ottery should be authorized by this State