Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-23

ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be Q perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution 10 say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by it, trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
volving 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, % . State, from en-.
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
Of raising means for the general revenue
Of the State. Honce they claim that the
State has the right to authorize private
parties 10 conduct and carry on . lottery
Of the character specified In the informs-
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 10
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption OF .
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. Il II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision, but that IL 10 proper to
examine them In case Of doubt % 10 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 ARC - 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 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 hnd this clause. Il was not
contained In tho old Constitution. but In
most cases. whore they have been
amended, u has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York. 10 which
reference has been made In the course Of
debate. no prohibition Wal 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. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished tho evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In l8iG, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution fsee Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and tho sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared 10 him .
that this prohibition was ono Of the best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
Tho language Of tho 10th Section Of Ar
tiole I Of tho Constitution Of 1886, refer.
red to by Mr.. Hslleck 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 the Almshouse vs.
American Art Union, supra, IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL 10 here, that the Con.
s~titution 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
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
tions Of the Constitution we're only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, Is do counsel here, that "from
100 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at 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
peouniary prizes as . means Of raising
revenue were alono within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
The Constitution OF 1871 is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lsture shall pass laws TO revent the sale Of
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which IL declared 10 DO sub
s~tantially the same a. the Constitution Of
1886, said: "This prohibition IL general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
moro limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes a. Q mean OF raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of tho trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries 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
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-
ct Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for the improve
mont Of ferries. for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but a. that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. It was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely TO result from
IL. Tho promotion Of the fne arts 10 I'M
doubtedly 0 c~ommendable object, but the
contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground. y
The intention Of the trainers Of the 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 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 Is had heretofore been for
hidden by statute undor the name Of
lotteries"
The argument that the words "by this
were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
ing public lotteries % . means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended TO prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, IL wholly IN.
No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satisfled that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence IL as important
10 the first.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
by the use OF tho words: mo
shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub.
lic lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In tho concluding sen.
tcnce, "Nor shall the sale OF lottery tick.
DTS DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
should DO authorized by this State
Tor any purpose.