Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-05

terry tickets In this State In direct viola
ton OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
DO . perversion Of the language Of the Con-
stitution 70 say that tho Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by Ito trainers intended
only TO prevent tho Legislature from In.
volving the State In . system 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 10 . Limitation Of power
10 prevent the State. - o 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 the 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 TO
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In Oalifornia upon the adoption Of .
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. II Il not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of .
judicial decision, but that IL 10 proper 10
examine them In case OF doubt % 10 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constltu.
ton. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question ct issue. They are a. 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.. Halleok, who was In
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said "In nearly al the new Constitu.
lions you will 6nd this clause. II was not
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 mado 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 10 the State Govern.
mcnt itself. The result 20 clearly estab-
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York. 10 1886, In.
serted Q clause In the very first article Of
the now Constitution (see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared TO him *.*
that this prohibition was n Of the best
that could be inserted In tho article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislature."
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar
ticle 1 Of the Constitution Of 1916, refer
red TO by Mr.. Halleck 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, 10 vas con.
tended by Charles O'Connor, counsel for
the Art Union, Is 10 10 hero, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended TO prevent tho
mischievous practice Of raising q revenuo
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor both In England
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
lions 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 ct every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of the Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921. for the pur-
pose OF showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes - Q means Of raising
revenue were alone within the contempla-
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution OF 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter DO
authorized In this State, and tho Legis.
laturo shall pass laws to prevent tho 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 10 declared 70 be SUBJ
stantially tho same as tho Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In o
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes a. Q means Of raising rev.
enue were slono within tho 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 10 therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended to be limited TO lotteries for that
object. 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 the bene.
ct Of colleges, for the making Of roads, for
the 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 wa not aimed at tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied, but u 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
more cogent practical reason that tho evil
consequent ON this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. Tho promotion Of mo ino arts 10 nm
doubtedly o commendablo object, but the
prohibition contains no exception In Its
favor on that ground. =
Tho intention Of the trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was 10 forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any timo previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring the Legis.
lhturo W pass LAVE w pEovcus sho peAo v.
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 the name OF
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words by this
State" were inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize
Ing public lotteries a. . means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended 10 prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and we are satisfed that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
stitution the last sentence y - important
~ the frst.
II tho trainers Of the Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall be authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power TO pub
lilo lotteries. conducted and managed solely
by tho State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used tho
language they did In the concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
80.