Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-15

roveQub, tuuy Wotiu dOt boNo uoCu tuo
language they did in the concluding sen.
tence, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
eta be allowed" These words clearly
show that 1t was not intended that any
lottery should be authorized BY this State
The words "by this stass," as used In
our Constitution. and the words "in this
STATE" cor. within this State" - used
In the Constitutions Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall bs authorised by this
State. nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed"
This language applies to all lotteries,
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the State BY the church ;
BY private individuals; by benevolent and
charitable associations, and by corpors.
tions.
No lottery Of any kind can be author.
ICED BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution. 2
We again repeat what, Il seems TO rs,
must be evident 70 every unbiased and i'm.
partial mind. that the language Of the
cous ustitutionL provision d too plain for
argument. That undss u the Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery In this 6tsts.
and that the Act approved March 9. 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the faot that Il was
unnecessary to add anything to the reason.
ing Of this Court In &c parfs Blanchard.
which 10. OF itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But Il has been attempted, by . deaire
upon our part. to show that no authority
could 10 found In any Of the adjudicated
cases In the United States to sustain the
position contended for by respondents |;
and that no argument has beon advanced
by respondents. upon either OF these
points, that has not heretofore been dc.
cided adversely to them by tho Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the same -
our own.
Il Is proper To add that wo have arrived
at the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality. or Inn
morality Of this particular scheme. 1t
makes no difference whether IL was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the benefit Of the "Inssne and
Charitable Fund" OF this State, or whether
IL belonged to that class Of lotteries that
are mado up Of peeuniary prizes and min.
lister to the love OF gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grosseat and
most revolving form directly TO that sordid
passion, aud to no other sentiment; whore
the managers receive pecunlary proht
aud enlist "a corps OF active seducers to
draw the weak and unwary Into the pur.
chase Of Tickets" by extensive advertise.
menm containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
It may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was srgusd BY respon.
dents counsel. that the people Of this State
ere essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times 70 take the desperate chances
which lotteries Afford, and that NO In.
furious effects upon the morals Of the peo.
pie would result II this game OF chance
was allowed to proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidered As settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision or parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that IL differed. IN this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were 10 receive the lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such % 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme, IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. Its mischiefs are certainly not
90 apparent % II its prizes were to be paid
in money. or ~ 1t would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improvident into Its hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according to
the views We may entertain OF the probable
good or evil consequent upon the exsou.
ton Of the scheme. The Constitution
took away the power Of determining
whether this or any other lottery was Of
good or evil tendency. and certainly did
not intend TO confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II IL we're to be ad.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making IL by Judicial con.
struction an exception TO the general aud
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot mako any distinction, in
this respect, a. 10 the nature Of the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In 1t. 1t 10 their boundon duty TO declare
the law.
"The law knows no person; II 10 not
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
W. Pierce, 8 New, S04.
It smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission to Its
authority 10 incumbent upon oil.
Third-It 10 unnecessary to discus any
Of the other points suggested BY respon.
dents' council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend to violate tile law.
From the visws already expressed IL 10
apparent that 1t would make no Differences
whether respondents base their right to
act 10 the premises under the articles OF
incorporation or under the provisions OF
tue Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant OF
Law.
The judgment Of this court is that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise, by virtue Of any law. to sdver.
tiss, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the +" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March 9. 1881
[Stat., 1881, 1855 and that the costs OF
this proceeding be taxed against them:
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LEosARp, O. ].
BELKSAP. ].