Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-14

revenue, thoy would not have used the
language they did In the concluding SEN
tsncs, "Nor shAll the sale Of lottery tick
eu be allowed" These words clearly
shov that Il was not intended that any
lottery should be authorised BY this Statt
for any purpose.
The words "by this State" a. used ir
our Cons tut tion, and the words In thi,
State" cor within this ststs," q used
In the Constitutions Of New York. have
| virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b authorised BY thii
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed"
This language applies 10 oil 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.
tons.
No lottery Of any kind can bs author.
lied by the Legislature under the present
i Constitution. . . Z
We again repeat what, Il seems to rs,
/ must be evident 10 every unbiAssd and i'm.
partial mind, that the language Of the
stitutionsl provision II too plain for
argument. That under Il the Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery IN this State,
and that the Aot approved March Q. 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that II Wa
unnecessary TO add anything to the reason
| Ing Of this Court In sz ports Blanchard.
which Ia, Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points we have discussed.
But Il has been attempted. BY desire
upon our part. 10 show that NO authority
could bo found In any Of the sdjudicated
cases In the United States TO 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 arc substantially tho same Is
our own.
It is proper to add that We have arrived
at the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality. or I'm
morality Of this particular scheme. II
makes no difference whether IL Was SET on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
epue for the benefit Of the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
Il belonged TO that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary prizes and min.
lister to the love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
mos. revolving form directly 10 that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecunisry proht
aud enlist "a corps Of active seducers to
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise.
ments containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
II may DO admitted for tho 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 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 ono that must be con.
sidered as settled by the adoption OF the
constitutional provision OK parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, to which We have
frequently referred. IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that IL differed. In this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were to 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 the Constitution
or by law. Ia mischisfs are certainly not
90 apparent ~ II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or % II would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improviient 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 10 confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II IL we're TO bo 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 10 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 Il. 1t 10 their bounden duty to declare
the law.
1.-THE law knows no person IL 10 not
made for tho individual man. but for men.
As the dow Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
VI. Pierce, 8 New, 80A.
II smiles and frowns upon oil alike. It
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 Unnecessary TO discuss any
Of the other points suggested by respon-
dsnts' council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend TO violate tue law.
From the views already expressed II 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under tho 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, to adver.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State.
or 70 do any Of the acts specified In the
statute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Assooiation." approved March Q. 1881
[Stat.. 1881, l66 |; and that the costs Of
this proceeding be taxed against them.
HAwLEY, j.
We concur: LEONARD, @. j.
BELKSAP. ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.