Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-29

nfy uckoo 10 tnie bute IN direct vt0ie'
ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of THU
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be . perversion Of the language Of the Con.
~stitution 70 nay that the Act Il valid.
Respondents, however, contend that The
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and wa BY IL framers intended
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving the State In . systom OF public
lotteries a. . means Of raising money for
the service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended 20 . limitation Of power
70 prevent the State. - Q State, from en-.
gazing In public lotteries for the purpose
OF raising means for the general revenue
OF the State. Hence they claim that the
State has tho right 10 authorize private
parties TO conduct and carry on . lottery
OF the character specified In the informs-
ton.
In support Of this position they refer 70
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of Q
provision In the Constitution Of that Stats
identical with our. II 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of q
judicial dscisien, but that u II proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt - 70 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 are - much In
favor Of the position taken BY the Attorney
General - they are In favor Of the respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti.
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 oours Of his argument.
said : "In nearly all the new Constitu.
tions you will fnd this clause. II was moi
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, where they have been
amended, 10 has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York, to 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 tho occasion Of %.
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 90 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
tho Convention Of New York. 10 ls46, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution [see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. II appeared TO him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could DO inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section Of Ar
ticls I Of the Constitution OF 1886, refer
red TO by Mr.. Halleck 10 - follows /: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter be 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. II 10 here, that the 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.
tons Of the Constitution were only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
to the fact, a do counsel here. that 'from
1909 TO 1924 public lotteries were author
lied at every session OF Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Consti.
tutionsl Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes - . means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution Of 1871 IL In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lsturo shall pass laws to prevent the sale Of
oil lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
Tho Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which IL declared TO DO sub
stantiilly the same - tho Constitution Of
1876, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must be held TO embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In .
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
cuniary prizes 10 Q means Of raising rev
nue. were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Consultation. 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 wss In.
tended 10 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
tho building OF bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries, for the erection Of hos.
pitfalls, and for various other purposes
equally commendable and beneficial. All
these were clearly within tho prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ct the 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 DO
done that good might follow, and upon the
more cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
It. The promotion Of tho fine arts ID un.
doubleday Q commendable object, but tho
prohibition contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of tho trainers Of tho Con-
stitution undoubtedly was 10 forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries -
had ct any time previously been author
iSSu W AeWs odu W Aofuitih6 sho @S6Ae-
lature to pass laws 70 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, TO put an end TO all
such distributions OF money or goods by
lot or chance ~ had heretofore been for
hidden by statute under tho name Of
private lotteries"
Tho argument that the words "by this
were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries as . means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. IL wholly I'M.
No authority has been produced
In is support and we are Satisfied that
mono can DO found.
In constituting this provision OF the Con.
stitution the last sentence h % important
~ the first.
II the trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by the use OF tho words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
TO only limit the legislative power TO pub
Ito lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would mot have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
tence. "Nor shall the sale OF lottery tick
Dts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that It was not intended that any