Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-11


revenue, they would net have used th,
language they did In the concluding sen
tence, "Nor shall the sale OF lottery tick
ets be allowed" These words clearly
shov that Il was not intended that AMI
lottery should be authorized BY this 6tat,
for any purpose.
The words "by this State" - used II
our Constitution. and the words in thiI
State" cor within this State" a used
In the Consultations Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall be authorised BY thiI
State. nor shall the sale Of lottsry ticket,
be allowed"
This language applies 10 Ill lotteries
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the State BY the church
by private individuals; by benevolent and
charitable associations, and BY corpora
tions.
No lottery Of any kind can be suthor.
lied BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution. . . q
We again repeat what. 1t seems 70 us,
mnst be evident 10 every unbiased and i'm
partial mind. that the language OF the
constitutional provisiou 10 too plain for
argument. That under II the Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery in this State,
and that the 40: approved March ., 1881,
Il null and void.
We arc conscious Of the faet that II was
unnecessary to add anything 70 the reason
Ing Of this Court In 90 ports Blanchard.
which 10. OF itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points ws hsve discussed.
But IL has been attempted. by . deaire
upon our part. 10 show that no authority
could 10 found In any Of the adjudioated
cases In the United States 10 sustain the
position contended for By respondents ;
and that no argument has been advanced
By respondents, upon either OF these
points, that has not heretofore been dc.
cided adversely to them by the Courts OF
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the Same ~
our own. .
Il is proper 10 add that We have arrived
st the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality, or I'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. 1t
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising res.
enue for the benefit OF the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
IL belonged 70 that class OF lotteries that
are made up Of peouniary prizes and min.
lister to the love OF gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly 70 that sordid
passion, and TO no other sentiment where
the managers receive . pecuniary pront
and enlist "s corps Of active ssducers to
draw the weak and unwsry into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. as was argued by respon-
dents counsel. that the people OF this State
are 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.
sidsred a. settled by the adoption OF the
provision OK parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, TO which We have
referred, 10 was claimed that
the enterprise was really OF . meritorious
and that Il differed. In this re.
spoct, from the lotteries where the mana.
agers wore 70 receive the lions share OF
the profits. The Court. In answer to this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such a. 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme. IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by tho Constitution
or by law. Its misohiefs are certainly not
20 apparent a. II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or - II would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
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 oxecu-
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 10 confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II IL wsro 10 be I'D.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In its consequences, II would form NO
ground for making IL by judicial con.
struction an exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition.
Courts cannot make any distinction. In
this respect, a TO the nature OF the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
in 1t. 1t 10 their bounden duty TO declare
the law.
1.-THE law knows no person II 10 not
made for tho individual man. but for men.
Al tho dew Of heaven falls, 30 II bears
alike upon the just and unjust" stats
vs., Pierce, 8 New, s04.
It smiles and frowns upon oil alike. 1t
makes no distinctions. Submission to its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon.
dents' council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
intend 10 violate the law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that II would make no differences
whether respondents base their right to
act 10 the premises under the articles oi
or under the provisions OF
the Act OF the Legislature. In either event
tnelr Acts Woulo w Wibuous "saAsAs Va
law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have no right. liberty, or
franchise, by virtue Of any law, TO sdver.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the I" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State.
or TO do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Assoc iation," approved March 8. 1881
[stat., 1881, 1851; and that the costs OF
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLEY. ].
We concur; LEONARD, @. ].
BxLKsAP. ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.
Il Au.Aa ~axld,s n n "A sn Yreaarfsd that the