Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-26

revenue, they would MT have used the
language they did In u concluding SEN
tenos. I" Nor shsll the sds Of lottery tick.
eu be allowed" Thee words clearly
show that II was not Intended that any
lottery should be authoassd BY this State
for any purpose.
The words "by this Htats," - used In
our Constitution, and The words in this
State" cor within this Sats." q used
In the Constitutions Of New York. have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b Authorised By this
State, nor shall the sale q lottery tickets
b allowed"
This language applies 70 sll lottsriss.
whsthsr public or privsh. To lottsriss
conducted BY the stats hy The church
By private individuals; bybsnsvolsnt and
charitable associations. and By corpora.
lions.
No lottery Of any kind can b author
ised BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution. . q - .
We again repeat what. 10 seems 70 n,
must be evident 10 every unbiased and In.
partial mind, that the language Of the
cons nstitutionsf provision d too plain for
argument. That undsr 10 the Legislature
cannot authortop any lottssy In this State,
and cha. the lss approval March 0. 1881
We are conscious Of the fact that u was
unnecessary 70 add anything 10 the reason.
ing Of this Court 10 ss parts Blanchard.
which 10, OF itself. absolutely oenolusivs
upon both Of the points ws have discussed.
But IL has BEEN atssmptsd, by dsaire
upon our part, To show that no authority
could 10 found In any OF the sdjudicated
cases In the United States TO sustain the
position contended for By respondents J
and that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either Of these
points, that has not hsrstofore been do.
cided adversely 10 them BY the Courts Of
other States, whore the constitutional
provisions are substantially the same -
our own. .
Ills proper 10 add that We have arrived
st the consiusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality. or i'm.
morality Of this particular schems. II
makes no difference whether u was set on
foot purely for the purpose Of raising rev.
suue for the benefit Of the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged 10 that class Of lotteries that
arc made up Of pscuniary prizes and min
ister to the love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly 10 that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentimsnt; where
the managers receive pecunisry proht
aud enlist 90 corps Of active ssducers 10
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise.
msnts containing brilliant pictures Of the
fsvorat!s chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
II may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. ~ was argued by respon.
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times TO take the desperate chances
which lotteries afford, and that no In.
jurious effects upon the morals Of the peo.
pie would result II this game OF chance
was allowed 70 proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidered Is settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision ex parts Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 70 which We have
frequently referred. IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of meritorious
character, and that II differed. in this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were 10 receive the lions share Of
the proats. The Court. In answer 10 this
argument, said:
Ell no lotteries had existed excepting
such - 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme. II 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or By law. Iu mischisfs are certainly not
20 apparent a. II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or - IL would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticlng the necessitous and
improviLent into ia hazards. But this
case cannot bs decided according 70
the views we may entertain OF the 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 we're to be ad.
mitted that the scheme II entirely. harm.
less In It's consequences, Il would form no
ground for making 10 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 II. 1t IL their bounden duty 70 declare
the Law.
"The law knows NO person u 10 not
made for tho individual man. but for men.
Az the dew OF heaven falls, 10 IL bears
alike upon the just and unjust" State
W. Pierce, 8 New, 80k.
Il smiles and frowns upon all Alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 Its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It II unnscsssary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon'
dsnts' council.
We will not presume, in advance. that
respondents intend 10 violate tue law.
From the views already expressed II 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 70
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
the Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant Of
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise, BY virtue Of any law. 70 sdvsr.
tiss, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the I" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or N do any Of the acts specified In the
statute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March Q. 1881
[stat.. 1881, 1851; and that the costs oi
this proceeding BE- taxed against them.
HAwLxY, J.
We concur: LxoSAlp, O. J.
BELxNAP, ].
NOTHING SHORT OF
uumissskabls benefits conferred upon tens d