Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-13

revenue, they would net have used the
language they did In tho concluding sen.
tence, Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
ets be allowed" These words clearly
ahov that 10 was not intended that any
lottery should be authorised By this State
for any purpose.
Tho words "by this Stats," ~ 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 b authorised BY this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottsry tickets
be allowed"
This language applies 10 al 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 osn bs author.
ICED BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution, . .
We again repeat what. 10 seems 10 ~,
must be evident 70 every unbiased and im.
partial mind. that Tho language Of the
constitutional provision 10 too plain for
argument That under II the Lesislsture
cannot authorize any lottery 10 this State,
and that the Act approved March Q, 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that u was
unnecessary 70 add anything 70 the reason.
lug OF this Court In sr parts Blanchard.
which Is. Of itself, absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But II has been attempted. BY . desire
upon our part. 10 show that no authority
could 10 found In any Of the sdjudioated
cases In the United States 10 sustain the
position oonended for by respondents ;
and that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either OF these
points. that has not heretofore been do.
cidsd adversely TO them by the Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the Same -
our own.
II 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. II
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the benefit OF the "Insans and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged TO that class OF lotteries that
are made up Of peouniary prizes and min.
ister to the love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion, and 10 no other sentiment where
the managers receive . pecunisry proht
and enlist 90 corps Of activo seducers to
draw the weak and unwary Into the pur.
chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise.
msnts containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 70 acquire sudden
wealth.
It may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. as was argued BY respon-
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially Q gambling people, ready
at all times TO taks 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 psrts Darling,
decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which We have
referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of Q msritorious
character, and that IL differed. In this 70.
speot, from the lotteries where the mana.
agsrs were " receivo thc-lion's share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"lf 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
70 apparent ~ II its prizes were to be paid
In money. or - II would be II framed for
The purpose Of enticing the neoessitous and
into its hazards. But this
,ase cannot be decided according 10
The views We may entertain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon tho execu.
lion 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 we're TO be I'd.
mittsd that the scheme ID entirely harm.
less In its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making IL BY Judicial con.
an exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction, In
this respect, % to the nature Of the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In II. II 10 their boundsn duty 10 declare
the law.
"The law knows no person IL 10 not
made for the individual man, but for men.
Az the dew OF heaven falls, 20 Il bears
Alike upon the Just and unjust" stats
~. Pierce, 8 New, 604.
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. 1t
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 its
authority 10 incumbent upon oil.
Third-lt 10 unnecessary 70 discuss any
,f the other points suggested BY rsspon.
isnt' council.
E We will not presume, in advance, that
intend TO violate tue law.
From the Views already expressed IL 10
apparent that 10 would make no difference
respondents base their right 70
vet in tho premises under tho articles Of
or under the provisions OF
Ihs Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant Of
law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
have no right. liberty. or
BY virtue Of any law. TO adver.
Iiss, print. circulate or sell any tickets In
Ihs scheme or enterprise Of the Nevada
Association" within this State,
DR. 70 do any Of the acts specified In the
,tatute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
approved March 0. 1881
Stat, 1881, 1861; and that tho costs OF
his proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLrY, ].
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BxLxSAP. ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.