Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-03

revenue, they would net have used the
language they did In the concluding sen.
tenee. " Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
ets be allowed" These words clearly
ahov that Il was not intended that any
lottery should bs authorised BY this State
The words "by this State" - used In
our Constit tion, and the words "in thil
state" cor within this stats," - used
In he Constitutions Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
emo lottsry shall b authorized BY this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed"
This Language applies 10 all lotteries.
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the 6tats By the church
by private individuals; BY benevolent and
charitable associations. and BY corpora.
No lottery Of. any kind can bs author.
lied BY the Lsgislsturs under the present
Constitution. . =
We again repeat what, u seems to us.
must b. evident 10 every unbiased and I'm.
partial mind. that the language Of the
constitutionl provision 10 too plain for
argument. That uhderit The Legislature
cannot authorlse any lottery IN this Stats.
and that ths Act approved March Q, 1881,
II null and void.
We arc conscious Of the fact that IL was
unnecessary TO add anything 10 the reason
Ing Of this Court In &c purts Blanchard.
which 10, OF itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But Il has been attempted, By . deaire
upon our part. to show that no authority
could 10 found In any OF the adjudicated
cases in the United States TO sustain the
position contended for BY respondents ;
aud that no argument has boon advanced
BY respondents, upon either OF these
points, that has not heretofore been dc.
cided adversely 10 them BY tha Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the same ~
our own.
Il 10 proper 10 add that we have arrived
at the consiusion 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.
enue for the benefit OF the "lnsans and
Charitable Fund" OF this State, or whether
10 belonged TO that class OF lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary 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 prodt
and enlist "a corps Of active seducers 10
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of ticksta" BY extensive advertise.
msuts containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances TO acquire sudden
wealth.
II may be admitted for the purposes OF
this decision, ~ was srgued BY rerpon.
dents counsel, that the people OF this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
1t all times 70 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.
sidered ~ settled by the adoption OF the
constitutional provision sI psrte 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 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 70 this
argument, said:
"Ii 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. Is misohisfs are certainly not
90 apparent - II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or - II would be II framed for
the purpose Of entieing the necessitous and
improvident into its hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according 10
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 IL we're 70 be ad.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less in It's oonseq quenoes. IL would form no
ground for making IL BY Judicial con.
struetion 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 1t. 1t IL their boundsn duty 70 declare
the Law.
"The law knows NO person; Il 10 NOT
made for tho individual man, but for men,
As the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL besrs
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
W. Pierce, 8 New, S04.
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission TO 1T
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 unnecessary 10 discuss any
Of the other points suggested by respon'
dents' council.
We will not presume. 10 advance. thai
respondents intend TO violate the law.
From the views already expressed IL II
apparent that 10 would make no differences
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under the articles ol
incorporation or under the provisions oi
tue Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant oi
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have no right. liberty, oi
franchise, BY virtuo of any law, TO adver'
tiss, print. circulate or sell any tickets 10
the scheme or enterprise Of tho ' Nevad'
Benevolent Association" within this State
or N do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March o. 1881
| [stat.. 1881, l66Ij and that the costs o.
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BELxsAP, j.
NOTHING SHORT OF