Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-17

eso- ~ NsAe sPAaAsSA 49,
provision Of the Constitution. IL would
DO . perversion Prime language Of the Con-
stitution 70 say tnat the ACT 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution docs not prohibit private
lotteries, o was py iu trainers intended
only. TO prevens the Legislature from In
yolving the State In = system Of pupiic
lotteries ~ Q means OF raising money Tor
the service Of tho state, or, In other
words, that this oonsututiona PROVISION
was oni intenaed y imisauon oi power
70 prevent tne ntse, ~ . jay, rom 90.
gsging In puplic iotIeries Ior .ne
OF raising means ior tne genera .e'enue
OF the State. tney CLAIM Ina. JUG
State has the right 70 autnorize privAe
parties to conduct q carry on : iotery
OF the character specified In the iniorms'
ton.
II support OF THIS position tney ,eIe. "
inc debates OF the Co~nstituuonn Eon
uon ~ oaiiioinis upon .ne .uopsVu CO..
PROVISION IN me Consutuuon VI 'ns. Hsa
Identical win ours; ~ J, NO. cL.i
that tneee debates ave tne Weigns u .
Judicial decisien' but that IT'S proper 70
examine them In case OF doubt a. 10 inc
intention OF the Trainers OF the Constitu-
ton. The remarks Of the dinerent mem,
bers shed but little light upon the real
question Of issue. They are ~ muen IN
favor OF the position taken py the Attorney
General - they are In favor OF inc respon'
dents. The debates show Thai the Consu.
tuition OF New York was referred 70 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 find this clause. 1t WA not
contained In tho old Constitution, but In
most cases, where 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 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 Sc
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In 1916, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
tho new Constitution [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
| ing the powers Of the Legislature"
Tho language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticle 1 OF the Constitution Of 1916, refer.
red to by Mr.. Hslleck Is as follows: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors OF the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, IL was con-
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, as IL 10 here, that the Con-
~stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mischieyous practice Of raising q revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
MANY wears In full yipor both In England
and In this country. and that tho prohibi.
tions Of tbe Copstitution wero onlv directed
apainst this particular evil. Ho referred
TO the fact. az do counsel hero. that ..from
1909 10 1894 public lotteries were author.
lied Al every session of Parliament" He
also referred 10 the debates OF the Consti.
tutional Convention OF 1921, for the pur.
poas of showing that 90 public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes As a means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contompls.
tion OF that BODY"
Tho Constitntion OF 1891 IA in these
words. UNo lottery abaIl hereafter be
Authorized In this State, and tho Lcgis.
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 DO SUBJ
stantially the same as the Constitution Of
l846, said: "This prohibition IL general.
II must be held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 1t In Q
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for po-
cuniary prizes As . 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 the purpose OF general rev
enue. and there is therefore no ground Tor
believing that the prohiDiuon was ~.
Tended 70 DC limited 70 lotteries LOT mat
object; rms would nave peen restiaining
miscniei wnicn aid NOT exist, ana 'oier'
ating tnat which dc. Lot.eries had Deen
authorized py Tue Legislature LOT the oene.
NJ OF colleges LOT tne masing OF roaas, lor
tne Duiiuing Of 1riuses, ior 'ne improvo'
ment OF ferries, Tor the erection OF nos
pitfalls, and Tor various other purposes
equally commendablo and oenefciai. All
these were clearly within the prohiDition'
The prohibition was not aimed at the OBJ
jects for which lotteries had been author
lied. but st that particular mode OF accom-.
plishing such objects. 1t was founded ON
tho moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow and upon inc
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbaianced IN tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
1t. The promotion OF me fine arts is un-
doubtedly 0 commendable object, but the
prohibition contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground. . =
Tho intention Of the trainers Of tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries a.
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
lature 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 a. had heretofore been for