it j i
1 I LOUKHHLLE FREE PUBLHZIJBRARY
accurate to say that lottery privileges were
`~ incorporated more adroitly into bills osten-
x sibly for other purposes.
With few exceptions, lotteries in Kentucky
i were commendable and were sustained by public
\_ opinion as long as they were used only to raise _
funds for public purposes. But in the Eight-
een—seventies, when the great New York lottery
’ operators, Simmons and Dickerson, bought up
= franchises and operated them for private gain,
i the public began to see evil where before it
,Q had been overlooked. It saw franchises issued t
F for school welfare, like the Frankfort grant, Y
i which had languished from the time of its birth F
{ } in l838 to its revival bv legislative act in {
L I 1869, used to roll a golden tide into private x
V T coffers. Theamounts devoted to school purposes
» i or distributed as prizes, the objects designat-
3 , ed in the original grant, were only pittances
i while the bulk of fthe proceeds went to the
operators.
v Even so, the awakened moral sense of the
people was not strong enough to offer a serious
2 challenge to the lotteries. lt remained for
the outcome of the grant to the Public Library Q
of Kentucky to precipitate widespread protest 1
» V against them. ln response, the legislature re- J
V voked every franchise known to be alive in the
` State and laid heavy penalties on lottery oper-
\ · ation. The indifference of the courts made
w these laws dead letters. Finally, the State »
, i constitutional convention assailed the evil and ’
/ inserted into the new constitution a clause
/ prohibiting lottery grants absolutely. It be- I
I came operative in lS92.(»)
24 g
i ' .
“»··-.. o .,.,.._   ,_  i