Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-06

tory tickets In this State In direct viola
ton OF the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
be . pervcrsion Of the language OF the Con.
~stitution to say that tho Act Ia valid.
Respondents, however, contend that tho
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries. and was by Its trainers intended
only TO prevent the Legislature from In.
volving the State in o system OF public
lotteries as Q means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" or. In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended as . limitation Of power
to prevent the State. as 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 the right to authorize private
parties to conduct and carry on Q lottery
Of the character specified In the informs
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
tho debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption OF 0
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 II 10 proper to
examine them In case OF doubt o. to the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton. The remarks Of tho different mem.
bsrs shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They arc 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.. Halleck, who was In
favor Of the adoption Of tho lottery pro.
vision, In the course Of his argument,
said "In nearly all the new Constitu-
tons you will find this clause. 1t 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
the famous case OF Yates and Mcintyre,
which involved not only individuals OF the
State In ruin, but was tho occasion OF 80
rious embarrassment to the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 30 clearly estab-
lished the evils OF the lottery system that
the Convention OF New York, In 1876, In.
serted Q clause In tho very first article Of
the new Constitution (seo Section l0
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. 1t appeared to him .
that this prohibition wal 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.
ticle 1 OF tho Constitution Of 1916, refer
red to by Mr.. Hslleck Is as follows /: "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
or any sale Of lottery tickets allowed with.
In this State"
In tho Governors OF tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, IL was CON-
tended by Charles O'Connor. counsel for
tho Art Union, a. IL Is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended to prevent tho
mischievous practice Of raising o revenue
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 tho fact, a. do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries we're author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of tho Consti-
t~utional Convention Of 1921, for the pur-
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes as 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 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 a. the Constitution Of
1876, said: "This prohibition Is general.
II must DO held to embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding IL In o
more limited sense. II was urged upon
tho argument that public lotteries for Pc
cuniary prizes as Q means OF raising rev.
enuo were alone within tho contemplation
Of tho trainers OF the Constitution. But
lotteries bavo never 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
. mischief which did not exist, and toler.
ating that which did. Lotteries had been
authorized by the Legislature for the bene-
at 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 wero clearly within tho prohibition.
The prohibition was not aimed ut tho OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had been author.
lied. but a. 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 tho
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. Tho promotion OF the hno arts Is un.
doubtedly O commendablo object, but the
prohibition contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention OF the trainers Of tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had ct any time previously boon author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
laturo to pass laws to prevent tho sale OF
all lottery tickets, 10 put IN end to all
such distributions Of money or goods by
lot or chance % had heretofore been for.
hidden by statute under tho namo OF
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" wero inserted for tho purpose OF
preventing tho Legislature from authoriz'
Ing public lotteries as Q means OF raising
revenue and that the provision was not
intended TO prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. Is wholly un.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In Its support and wo are satisfied that
mono can be found.
In constituting this provision OF tho Con-
stitution the last sentence 10 as important
as the first.
II the trainers Of tho Constitution had
intended by the use Of the words: "No
lottery shall DO authorized by this State"
to only limit the legislative power to pub
lie lotteries, conducted and managed solely
by the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used tho
language they did In tho concluding sem
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that IL was not intended that any