Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-02

revenue, they would not have used tn
language they did In the concluding sen
tence, !" Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
eta be allowed" These words olesrl
shov that Il was not intended that 90,
lottery should be authorised BY this Stat
for any purpose. -.
our Constitution. and the words Z" In thi
STATE" cor within this State" % use,
In the Constitutions Of New York, hsv
virtually the same meaning.
l. "No lottery shal be authorised BY thi
State, nor shall We sale Of lottery ticket
be allowed"
This language applies 10 all lotteries
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted by the stats BY the church
by private individuals BY benevolent ant
charitable associations, and By corpora
tions.
No lottery Of any kind can bs author
lied BY the Legislature under the pressn
i Constitution. I
We again repeat what, u seems TO us
must be evident 70 every unbiased and I'm
partial mind, that the language Of th,
consti titut tional provision Il too plain fol
argument. That under II the Lsgislssurs
cannot authoriss any lottery 10 this State
and that the Aot approved March Q, 1881,
| 10 null and void.
We arc conscious Of the fact that it VA
unnecessary TO add anything 70 the reason
| ing Of this Court In &c parts Blanchard,
which 10, Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed,
But IL has been attempted. BY . desirs
upon our part, 10 show that no authority
could be found In any Of tho sdjudicated
cases In the United States 70 sustain the
position oontended for by respondents
and that no argument has bean advanced
BY respondents, upon either Of these
points, that has not heretofore been de.
oided adversely TO them BY the Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions arc substantially the Same ~
our own.
Il is proper To 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 "Insano and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
Il belonged 70 that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pscuniary prisss and min.
lister to the 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 profit
aud enlist ga corps Of active seducers TO
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
Chase Of ticksts" by extensive advertise.
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. a. was argued by respon.
dsnts' counsel. that the people OF this State
are essentially gambling people, ready
ct all times TO 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 tho adoption Of the
constitutional provision OK parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which We have
frequently referred. IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . msritorious
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 10 this
argument, said:
III 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. Iu misehisfs arc certainly not
90 apparent - II its prizes were to be paid
in money, or - IL would bs II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improviLent 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 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 70 confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II IL we're TO be sd.
mittsd that the scheme 10 entirely harm-
less In its consequences, 10 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 II. ltis their bounden duty 70 declare
the law.
"Ths law knows no person II 10 not
made for the individual man, but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls, 20 II bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
W. Pierce, 8 New, S04.
Il smiles aud irowns upon oil alike. 1t
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 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
respondents intend 70 violate the law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that II would mako no difference
whether respondents base their right to
sot 10 the premises under tho articles OF
incorporation or under the provisions Of
the Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant OF
Law.
The judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise, by virtue Of any law, to adver'
tiss, 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, $50 aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March 0. 1881
TStat., 1881, 1851; and that the costs Of
this proceeding be taxed against them.
HAwLEY, j.
We concur; LEONARD, @. ].
BHLKSAP, ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.