Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:58:19.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yates and McIntyre: Lottery Managers*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Hugh G. J. Aitken
Hugh G. J. Aitken
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The economic significance of the lottery business is a subject which historians have generally neglected. This is unfortunate, for both in Europe and the United States the lottery was at one time a capitalmobilizing device of major importance. It appears worth while, therefore, to explore in some detail the operations of a lottery firm that seems to exemplify some of the features of the system in its most mature form. This is the firm of Yates and McIntyre, lottery managers in New York State and elsewhere between 1821 and 1834.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 1953 , pp. 36 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ross, A. Franklin, The History of Lotteries in New York (Doctor's thesis, New York University, n.d.), pp. 23–29Google Scholar.

2 Documents Relative to the Dispute between the Trustees of Union College and Yates and McIntyre (Albany, 1834 [?]), 408, McIntyre to Nott, November 29, 1830. References to this collection, hereinafter cited as Documents, are by paragraph number.

3 Doyle, Thomas, Five Years in a Lottery Office, or an Exposition of the Lottery System in the United States (Boston, 1841)Google Scholar; Tyson, Job R., A Brief Survey of the Great Extent and Evil Tendencies of the Lottery System, as Existing in the United States (Philadelphia, 1833)Google Scholar; New York Senate Documents, 1833, Vol. 2, No. 108, petition of Palmer Carificld on the subject of lotteries.

4 For biographical data on J. B. Yates, see Smith, John E., Our County and its People, a descriptive and biographical Record of Madison County, New York (Boston, 1899), pp. 178, 317–465Google Scholar; Lanman, Charles, Biographical Annals of the Civil Government of the United States, during its First Century (Washington, D.C., 1876)Google Scholar; and Jenkins, John S., Lives of the Governors of the State of New York (Auburn, 1851), pp. 320 ff.Google Scholar

5 For biographical data on McIntyre, see F. W. Beers & Co., History of Montgomery and Fulton Counties, N. Y. (New York, 1878), p. 239Google Scholar; Sprague, William B., A Sermon Addressed to the Second Presbyterian Congregation, Albany, Sunday afternoon, May 9, 1858, on Occasion of the Death of the Hon. Archibald McIntyre (Albany, 1858)Google Scholar; and the works cited in footnote 6.

6 The circumstances are described in Roberts, J. A., A Century in the Comptroller's Office (Albany, 1897), pp. 17–27Google Scholar; Dougherty, J. H., Constitutional History of the State of New York. (2d ed.; New York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1915), pp. 83–84Google Scholar; Jenkins, John S., History of Political Parties in the State of New York (2d ed.; Auburn, 1849), pp. 215–22.Google Scholar

7 For the text of the act, see Documents, 1–17.

8 Particularly the so-called “Baldwin case”; see Ross, History of Lotteries, pp. 32–33.

9 Note, however, that in October 1821 we find McIntyre successfully negotiating for the Union Canal lotteries in Pennsylvania with “his friend John Yates of New York” mentioned in the contract as his associate. The operations of Yates and McIntyre outside of New York State are not discussed in this article.

10 Documents, 19–26.

11 Documents, 27.

12 Documents, 29–43.

13 Documents, 43a, 50, 54–55.

14 Documents, 58. The grant to the New York Historical Society was a legislative afterthought.

15 New York, Assembly Documents, 1833, Vol. 1, No. 13, report of attorney general in relation to lotteries.

16 Documents, 57.

17 Documents, 28–43.

18 Documents, 28.

19 Documents, 60–61.

20 Documents, 63, J. B. Yates to E. Nott and H. Yates, January 6, 1823.

21 Documents, 118. If any tickets in a class were not sold, they were included in the drawing but remained the property of the managers. That is to say, lottery managers gambled in their own lotteries to the extent of the tickets which they failed to sell.

22 Documents, 64–65, J. B. Yates to E. Nott, May 10 [?]. 1823.

23 Information on Yates's role in the Welland Canal Company has been gathered from the Merritt Papers in the Public Archives of Canada and the Archives of the Province of Ontario.

24 For the role of lottery firms in the development of investment banking, see Redlich, Fritz, The Molding of American Banking: Men and Ideas (New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1951), Part n, pp. 326–37Google Scholar, and Larson, Henrietta M., “S. & M. Allen—Lottery, Exchange, and Stock Brokerage,” Journal of Economic and Business History, III, 3 (May 1931), 424–45Google Scholar. For Yates's motives in investing in Welland Canal stock, see his letter to Merritt dated January 3, 1830, in the Public Archives of Canada, Merritt Papers, Vol. II. In this letter Yates encourages Merritt to seek banking privileges for the company, adding significantly, “If however I was anxious to make a permanent investment I would rather have the canal stock if the company had no banking powers than if it had.”

25 Although Yates and McIntyre were involved as a firm in the Welland Canal, it appears that the initial investment was made by J. B. Yates personally and that McIntyre had to come to the rescue with his own and the firm's money when Yates got into difficulties. On September 29, 1828, Yates informed Nott that he and his partner had agreed not to become involved in any speculation “as a house” in future (Documents, 181). That is to say, although the firm of Yates and McIntyre did become engaged in something very like loan contracting, measures were taken to prevent any repetition of the experiment.

26 Documents, 80–81, Yates and McIntyre to Nott, January 4, 1826.

27 Documents, 97. The loan was obtained from William James, the Albany merchant, grandfather of William James, the philosopher, and Henry James, the novelist It was not repaid until May 1830 (Documents, 355–67).

28 Documents, 86–89, McIntyre to Nott, January 23, 1826.

29 Documents, 91–93.

30 This lottery was authorized in spite of the prohibition of lotteries in the state's new constitution of 1821, the excuse being that it was not really a new lottery at all, but merely a reauthorization of earlier lotteries which had not been successful. New York City paid the state $40,000 for the privilege, and apparently no one was inclined to quibble. On the constitutionality of this and the Albany Land lottery, see New York, Assembly Documents, 1833, Vol. 1, No. 13, report of attorney general in relation to lotteries.

31 Laws of the State of New York, 1823–29 (Albany, 1829), pp. 576 ft.; report of committee on expiring laws, relative to repealing all laws authorizing the sale of lottery tickets, April 23, 1829.

32 Yates, and McIntyre, , Remarks addressed to the Public, by Yates and McIntyre, in relation to their Rights as Assignees of the New York Lotteries (New York, 1832)Google Scholar; Laws of the State of New York, 1828–29, report of committee on expiring laws.

33 Documents, III, Yates and McIntyre to Nott, May 21, 1826.

34 Documents, 118.

35 Documents, 119–22, Henry Yates to Nott, December 15, 1826.

36 Documents, 123–27, McIntyre to Nott, December 16, 1826.

37 Documents, 161–68, J. B. Yates to Nott, June 13, 1827; tee also his communication to the chairman of the committee on lotteries of the assembly, Documents, 147–52.

38 The accounts and terms of the settlement are to be found in a volume entitled Reply of the Trustees of Union College to Charges brought before the Assembly of New York, March 19, 1850, and before the Senate on the 12th of April, 1851, by the Hon. J. W. Beekman (Albany, 1853), Appendix K, Schedule D.

39 Documents, 527–31, Silas Wright, Jr., to Yates and McIntyre, December 26, 1832.

40 Documents, 180–92, J. B. Yates to Nott, September 29, 1828. The “third party” referred to was probably William James (see n. 27).

41 As a committee of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania succinctly pointed out in 1832, “he [McIntyre] is an adventurer in the lottery to the extent of the tickets on hand at the time of drawing.”

42 Documents, 232–39, Yates and McIntyre to Nott, January 13, 1829.

43 Documents, 240, Yates and McIntyre to Nott, May 31, 1829.

44 Documents, 180–92 and 217–25, J. B. Yates to Nott, September 29, 1828, and November 28, 1828.

45 Documents, 241, Henry Yates to Nott, February 14, 1829.

46 Documents, 243–45, Henry Yates to Nott, May 20, 1829.

47 Documents, 276–78, Henry Yates to Nott, September 28, 1829.

48 Documents, 286, Henry Yates to Nott, November 11, 1829.

49 Documents, 347–54, Nott to Yates and McIntyre, May 3, 1830.

50 Documents, 485–91, H. Yates, John Ely, Jr., and James McIntyre to Nott, April 28, 1832.

51 Documents, 523–26, Nott to Henry Yates, December 20, 1832.

52 For a summary of developments, see Reply of the Trustees of Union College, Appendix G, J. P. Cushman and A. C. Paige to Treasurer of Hamilton College, February 23, 1840.

53 New York, Assembly Documents, 1833, Vol. 1, No. 13, report of attorney general.

54 New York, Senate Documents, 1834, Vol. 2, No. 52, report of the committee of the judiciary relative to the sale of lottery tickets.

55 See Dillistin, W. H., Bank Note Reporters and Counterfeit Detectors, 1826–1866 (New York, 1949)Google Scholar.

56 See Neu, Irene D., “Iron-Ore Mining in the New York Adirondacks,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, III, 1 (October 1950), 35–43Google Scholar.

57 Documents, 50, certificate of comptroller, April 9, 1822.

58 Figures are taken from Reply of the Trustees of Union College, Appendix K, Schedule D.

59 This surplus arose (1) because Union College, in virtue of its various contracts with Yates and McIntyre, was participating in the profits of the lottery business, and (2) because of the mistake made by the comptroller referred to above. Note, however, that when the comptroller's mistake was discovered in 1833 the surplus became a deficit, as Union College then had to return to Yates and McIntyre part of the sums paid in error. Union College actually realized some $75,000 less than the total value of its lottery grants.