Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-04-01

ton Of the plain letter and spirit Of thil
provision Of the Constitution. Il would
be q perversion Of the language Of the Con.
stitution TO say that the Act ID valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution "does not prohibit private
lotteries, and was BY it, trainers intended
only to prevent the Legislature from In.
volving the State in . system Of public
lotteries - . means Of raising money for
tho service Of the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
was only intended y Q 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 the right to authorize private
parties TO conduct and carry on . lottery
OF the character specified In the informs-
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 IL not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of Q
judicial decision, but that II 10 proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt % 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 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 10 In
discussing the provlsion that was 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-
lions you will find this clause. II was not
contained In the old Constitution, but In
most cases, whore they have been
amended, II has been introduced. In the
old Constitution Of New York, 70 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 30.
rious embarrassment TO the State Govern.
ment itself. The result 90 clearly estab.
lished the evils Of the lottery system that
the Convention Of New York, In l846. In.
serted . clause In the very FIRST article Of
the new Consultation (see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and the sale OF lot.
terry tickets. II appeared 10 him .
that this prohibition was one OF tho best
that could DO inserted In the article limit.
ing the powers Of the Legislaturo."
The language Of the 10th Section OF Ar.
ticle I Of the Consultation OF l84G, refer.
red to by Mr.. Hslleck Is Is follows : "Nor
shall any lottery hereafter DO authorized
OIL 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
the Art Union, Is II Is here, that the Con.
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising Q 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 tho Constitution wero only directed
against this particular evil. He referred
TO tho fact, a. do counsel hero, that ''from
l709 to 1924 public lotteries were author
lied ct every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to tho debates Of the Consti.
tutionAl Convention Of 1921, for tho 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 Is In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws TO prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets within this State except
In lotteries already provided for by law"
The Court Of Appeals In referring 10 this
Constitution, which II declared to be sub
stsntially tho same - tho Constitution Of
1916, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held 10 embrace all lotteries,
unless there DO some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding 10 In Q
moro limited sense. II was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for Pc
~cuniary prizes a. . means OF raising rev.
emu were alone within the contemplation
Of the trainers Of the Constitution. But
lotteries havo never been created within
this State for tho purpose Of general rev.
enue, and there 10 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
authorized by the Legislature for the beno-
at 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 the 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 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 tho
aggregate any good likely to result from
IL. The promotion OF the fine arts 10 un-
doubtedly . commendable object, but the
contains NO exception In Its
favor on that ground.
The intention Of the trainers OF tho Con.
stitution undoubtedly was TO forbid the
granting Of any such lotteries as
had al any time previously been author
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis.
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.
by statute under tho name Of
lotteries"
Tho argument that the words "by this
State" we're inserted for the purpose Of
preventing tho Legislature from authorize.
Ing public lotteries q . means Of raising
revenue. aud that the provision was not
intended to prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries, 10 wholly I'M.
tenable. No authority has been produced
In its support and We are satisied that
none can DO found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con-
stitution the last sentence 10 % important
n the first.
II the trainers OF the Constitution had
by the use Of the words: "No
shall DO authorized by this State"
10 only limit tho 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
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
sts DO allowed" These words clearly
,ho- that u xvss pnk ipkapdad that anv