|
was that there should not be any lotteries,
no matter who put them on, whether they
be a private individual, a State or others.
You have substituted the words "author-
ized by the State or its political subdivi-
sions." Does this mean a church or any
private club, the Elks or anyone else you
want to think of, absent legislation on the
subject, could authorize a lottery?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: The answer
I have is that "sanction" as we intended to
use it was in the same sense as "author-
ized." Now, you asked if the State could
authorize some club —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow, I
think the question that Delegate Case is
asking is precisely the one that Delegate
Burdette asked you that the Chair re-
framed. I think Delegate Case is asking
whether your answer is different because
of the substitution of the word "author-
ized", in other words, if the recommenda-
tion is amended as you have indicated and
there is no gambling statute to prohibit
lotteries or any other form of gambling-,
would a private lottery he prohibited under
your modified language as you indicated it
would be prohibited under your previous
language?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that your ques-
tion, Delegate Case?
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, that
answers the question but I respectfully call
to your attention that I think it is the
wrong answer. This says lotteries shall not
be authorized by the State or its local po-
litical subdivisions. Assume with me that
there is no statute on the subject at all. I
just do not see where this prohibits a cor-
poration from being formed for the express
purpose of holding a lottery.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: The answer is
that the State has in its constitution, that
state lotteries shall not be authorized by
the State or its political subdivisions and
if they are not authorized, they are not
lawful.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: But the nonauthor-
ization is by the State or its political sub-
divisions, it is limited to that. It is not a
complete absolute ban on lotteries and this
is what I thought the Committee was try-
ing to reach.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the ques-
tion could be resolved in this way: What
we are talking about is the meaning or
definition of the word to be used, although
I think from the answers given that the
intent is clear. Could we leave to the Com-
mittee on Style the choice of the word with
the statement that the provision is intended
to prohibit lotteries whether they are
granted by the State, authorized by the
State, sanctioned by the State or permitted
by the State, and allow them to choose the
proper word. Would that meet the ques-
tion, Delegate Sherbow?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, hut I
still want to make it clear that it was not
the intention of the Committee by the defi-
nition of lottery to prohibit bingo.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think we
are talking about the question of bingo in
this context. What we are concerned with
is the meaning of the whole prohibition and
not the definition of "lottery". I think what
we must have a clear intent about is
whether by the language used it is in-
tended to prohibit by the constitutional
provision alone, public and private lotteries.
Delegate Sherbow, does that answer the
question?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer
the question, Delegate Case?
DELEGATE CASE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Penniman,
have you made a note about it so there is
no question about it?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Could an addi-
tional verb be added to the four you just
mentioned? Does the breadth of the lan-
guage include the verb conducted?
THE CHAIRMAN: Chairman Penniman
can make a note of that. I think the intent
is to prohibit both public and private
lotteries.
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: So it would be fair
to say what this says is that all lotteries
in this State shall be prohibited?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair under-
stands that is the meaning of it. Would
you concur, Delegate Sherbow?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, sir.
|
