Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-07

tory tickets In this State In direct viola.
tion Of the plain letter and spirit Of this
provision OF the Constitution. Il would
Be q perversion Of the language Of the Con.
stitution To say that the Act 10 valid.
Respondents, however, contend that the
Constitution docs not prohibit private
lotteries, and Vas by is trainers intended
only 10 prevent the Legislature from In
volving the State in . system Of public
lotteries q . means Of raising money for
the service OF the State" or, In other
words, that this constitutional provision
only intended q . Limitation Of power
TO prevent the State. - 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 10
the debates OF the Constitutional Conven-
ton In California upon the adoption Of q
provision In the Constitution Of that State
Identical with ours. II II not claimed
that these debates have the weight Of q
Judicial decision, but that u II proper TO
examine them In case Of doubt a. 70 the
intention Of the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton. The remarks Of the different mem.
bers she'd but little light upon the real
question ct Issue. They are a. 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 10 In
discussing the provision that wal adopted
In California. Mr.. Halleok, who was in
favor Of the adoption Of the lottery pro.
vision, In the -oourse Of his argument,
said : "In nearly all the new Constitu.
tons you will fnd 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, 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 So
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, 10 1886, In.
serted . clause In the very first article OF
the new Constitution [see Section 10l
prohibiting lotteries and tho sale Of lot.
terry tickets. It appeared 10 him
that this prohibition was one OF the best
that could DO 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 Is 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, % IL is here, that tho Con.
stitution was only intended TO prevent the
mischievous practice Of raising . revenue
by public lotteries, which had been for
many years In full vigor 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, a. do counsel here, that ''from
1909 to 1924 public lotteries were author.
lied at every session Of Parliament" He
also referred to the debates Of tho Consti.
tutional Convention Of 1921, for the pur.
pose Of showing that public lotteries for
pecuniary prizes a. . means Of raising
revenue were alone within tho contempla'
ton Of that body"
Tho Constitution OF 1921 10 In these
words: "No lottery shall hereafter be
authorized In this State, and the Legis.
lature shall pass laws 70 prevent tho sale oil
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 DO sub
s~tantially the anne ss the Constitution Of
l8i6, said: "This prohibition 10 general.
II must DO held 10 embrace all lotteries,
unless there be some very clever and salts.
factory reason for understanding II In q
moro limited sense. Il was urged upon
the argument that public lotteries for po-
cuniary prizes - . mean Of raising rev.
enue were alone within the contemplation
Of tho trainers. Of the Constitution. But
lotteries have never 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 DO limited TO lotteries for that
object. This would have been restraining
. mischid 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
the building Of bridges, for the improve
ment Of ferries. for tho 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 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 the
aggregate any good likely 10 result from
II. Tho promotion Of the Ono 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 the Con.
'stitution undoubtedly was 70 forbid the
future granting Of any such lotteries 10
had ct any time previously been author.
lied by law. and by requiring tho Legis-
lature TO pass laws 70 prevent the sale OF
all lottery tickets, TO put ap 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 asa means Of raising
revenue. and that the provision was not
intended to prevent the Legislature from
authorizing private lotteries. 10 wholly un.
tenablo. No authority has been produced
In Its support and We are satisaed that
none can be found.
In constituting this provision Of the Con.
~stitution tho last sentence 10 - important
a. tho 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 the State for the purpose Of raising
revenue, they would not have used the
language they did In tho concluding sen.
tence. "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
cts DO allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any