Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-12

cases In the United States to sustain the
position commended 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 10 them by the Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions arc substantially tho same rs
our own.
Il is proper TO add that 70 have arrived
at the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of tho morality, or I'm.
morality OF this particular scheme. IL
makes no difference whether II was set ON
foot purely for the purpose Of raising rev.
enue for the benefit Of the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
IL belonged TO that class Of lotteries thai
are made up Of ~pecuniary prizes and min
lister to tho love Of gain ; whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment ; where
the managers receive . pecuniary proht
and enlist :" corps Of active seducers to
draw tho weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
It may DO admitted for the purposes Of
this decision, - was argued by respon.
dents counsel, thatthe people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times to take tho desperate chances
which lotteries afford, and that no In.
furious effects upon the morals Of the PEG.
ple would result II this game Of chance
was allowed 10 proceed.
This question 10 n that must be con-.
sidered Is settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision ex parte Darling,
recently decided
In tho Art Union case, to which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
tho enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that IL differed, In this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers wcro TO receive the lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"Ifn NO lotteries had existed excepting
such as IL contained In tho Art Union
scheme, IL Ia not probable that they would
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
so apparent Is II It's prizes were to be paid
In money, or as 1t would DO II framed Tor
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improvident into Its hazards. But this
case cannot DO decided according to
the views VIC may entertain Of tho probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
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 II were to DO I'D.
mltted that the scheme ia. entirely harm.
less In Its consequences, 1t would form NO
ground for making 1t by judicial con.
struction an exception to the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
"Tho law knows no person ;.it 10 no
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dow OF heaven falls, 70 II bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce. 8 New. 3Oi.l
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. It
makes no distinctions. Submission to Its
authority Is incumbent upon all.
Third-It Is unnecessary to discuss any
OF the other points suggested by respon.
dents council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend to violate the law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions OF
the Act OF tho Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of
law.
Tho judgment Of this Court Is that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise. by virtue Of any law, to adver.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
tho scheme or enterprise Of tho Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of the acts specified In the
statute. "to aid tho Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March o, 1881
tStst., 1881. 1861; and that the costs Of
this proceeding DO taxed against them.
HAwLEY, J..
Wo concur LEONARD, @. ].
BELYNAP, j,