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


ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of thi
provision OF the Constitution. It woult
DO q perversiou Of the language Of the Con
stitution to say that tho Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that TIL
Constitution "does not prohibit privat,
lotteries, and was by its trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In
yolving the State In . system Of public
lotteries % Q means OF raising money fol
the service Of the State" or, In Other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended % . limitation Of power
10 prevent the State, - . 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 to authorize private
parties to conduct and carry on Q lottery
OF the character specified In the informa'
ton. :.
In support Of this position they refer Ia
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven.
ton In California upon the adoption Of .
provision In the Constitution Of that State
identical with ours. It II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of q
judicial decision, but that u IL proper 10
examine them In case Of doubt a. TO the
intention 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 q much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General as they are In favor Of tho respon.
dents. The debates show that the Consti.
tuition Of New York was referred 70 In
discussing the provision that wal adopted
In California. Nj. 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. II 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 the course Of
debate. no prohibition Was inserted.
Many gentlemen present would remember
tie 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 the evils Of the lottery system that
tho Convention OF New York, 10 1916. In.
serted 0 clause In the very first article Of
the new Constitution [seo Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him
that this prohibition was n Of tho best
that could BIO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the legislature"
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle I Of the Constitution Of 1916, 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 tho Governors Of the Almshouse vs..
American Art Union. supra, IL was con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, a. IL is hero, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent the
practice Of raising 0 revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and in this country, and that tho prohibi.
tons 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 every 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 a. . means Of raising
revenue were alono within the contempla.
ton Of that body"
The Constitution Of 1871 IL In these
"No lottery shall hereafter be
In this State, and tho Legis.
shall pass laws TO prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
Tho Court Of Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which IL declared to be sub
stantially the same as the Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition Is general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts
reason for understanding IL In .
moro limited sense. II 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 mover been created within
this State for the purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there Is therefore no ground for
believing that tho prohibition was In.
tended to DO limited to lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
q mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
by the Legislature for the bene.
1t Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the building Of bridges. for tho improve
ment Of ferries. for tho erection Of hos.
and for various other purposes
commendablo aud beneficial. All
these were clearly within the prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but 1t that particular mode Of accom-
plishing such objects. 1t 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
on this pernicious kind Of
gambling greatly overbalsnced In the
aggregate any good likely 10 result from
Il. Tho promotion Of tho fno arts 10 I'M
doubtedly Q commendablo object, but the
contains no exception In its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of tho trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid tho
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
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 undor the name Of
lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries as . means OF raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
Intended To prevent tho Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly un.
No authority has been produced
In It's support and wo are satisfied that
mono can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
tho last sentence IL - important
Is tho first.
II tho trainers OF the Constitution had
by tho use Of tho 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 the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
.ence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
,ts DO allowed" These words clearly
,how that u was not intended that any
ottery ahould la authorized nv this 9tate