Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-13

terry tickets In this STATE In direct viola
ton Of tho plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. It would
be o perversion Of the language Of the Con.
stitution to say that the Act 10 valid.
{, Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was by It's trainers intended
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In.
yolving the State In 0 system OF public
lotteries % Q means Of raising money for
tho service Of the State" or, In other
words. that this constitutional provision
WIS only intended a. . 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 . lottery
Of the character specified in tho informa'
ton.
In support Of this position they refer to
the debates Of the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption OF q
provision In the Constitution OF that State
Identical with ours. It 10 not claimed
that these debates have the weight OF q
yuuiCiAA ucCi1ioub out WAS Nis PtSfSA W
examine them In case Of doubt % 70 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu-
tion. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers shed but little light upon the real
question at issue. They are as much In
favor Of the position taken by the Attorney
General as 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 Wal 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 And this clause. It 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 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 So
rious embarrassment 10 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 o clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution [see Section l0l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared TO him .
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could be inserted In the article limit.
ing tho powers OF the legislature"
The language Of tho 10th Section OF Ar.
ticle I OF tho 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 tho Almshouse vs..
American Art Union, supra, 1t was con.
tended by Charles 0'Connor. counsel for
the Art Union, as Il 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 yigor both In England
and In this country, and that the prohibi.
tions 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 tho Consti'
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur'
pose OF showing that :" public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes IS Q means OF raising
revenue were alone within the contempla'
ton Of that body"
The Constitution OF 1921 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and tho Legis'
lature shall pass laws 10 prevent the sale Of
ell lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
Tho Court OF Appeals In referring to this
Constitution, which 10 declared to DO sub
~stantially the same a. the Constitution OF
1876, 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 10 In q
more limited sense. It was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for pc
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 Ia therefore no ground for
believing that the prohibition was In.
tended 70 DO 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.
ft OF colleges, for the making Of roads, for
tho building Of bridges, for the improve
mont 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 at the OBJ.
jects for which lotteries had boon author.
lied, but at that particular mode Of accom-.
plishing such objects. 1t was founded on
the moral principle that evil should not be
done that good might follow, and upon the
moro cogent practical reason that the evil
consequent on this pernicious kind OF
gambling greatly overbalanced In the
aggregate any good likely to result from
Ii. The promotion Of tho flne arts 10 un-
doubtedly o commendable object, but the
prohibition contains no exception in Its
favor on that ground. = =
Tho intention Of tho trainers Of the Con.
stitution undoubtedly was to forbid tho
future granting Of any such lotteries as
had at any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
laturo 10 pass laws TO prevent tho 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.
hidden by statute under tho namo OF
private lotteries"
The argument that tho words "by this
State" were inserted for tho purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.