Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-20

revenue, they would nst have used the
language they did In the concluding sem
tsnoe, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
Ar Be allowed" These words clearly
sbov that Il was not intended that any
iottsry should b authorised BY this State
The words "by this Htass," q ussd In
our Constitution. and The words "in this
ststs." cor within this etats," e ussd
In he Consultations Of New York, have
virtually the same manning.
"No Iostsry shall b authorised By this
sssts, nor shall TIE sale Of lottery tioksts
b allowed"
This Language applies 70 aii lotteries.
whether public ee PRINTS. 10 lottsriss
conducted b. ths efsts BY ths church !;
by priysts individuals By bsnsvolsnt and
chsritabls associations. and By oorpors-
lions.
No lottsry of. asy lind On b suthor.
ised BY the Lsgisls,ars under ths present.
Constitution. ssssssss
We again repeat what, u sssms 70 10,
must Be- evident v svery unbiased and In
partial mind. thst ~ language Of ths
ooustituhonsl provisios u TOO plsin for
srEumsns That undsr u ~ Lsgislssurs
cannot authosiss sny lotesry n this sA.s.
sad Ia. sss AZ lpsro'sd March ..
We are conscious Of ths iset that u was
unnecessary 70 add anything 10 the rsason-
ing Of this Court In - ports Blanchard.
which 10. Of itsslf. shsolutsly conclusive
upon both Of the points ws have discussed.
But it has bean attempted, By . desire
upon our part, 70 show that no authority
could 10 found In any Of the adjudicatsd
Gases IN the United States 70 sustain the
position contsnded for BY respondsuts |;
and that no argument has been advanced
BY respondents, upon sither Of these
points, that has not hsrstofors BEEN do.
cided adversely 10 than By the Courts of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the same -
our own.
Il 10 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 u was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the bsne6t Of the Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged 70 that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of peouniary prizes and min.
lister 10 the love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly 10 that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentiment whore
The managers receive pscuniary pront
and enlist "a corps Of aotivs seducers 70
draw the weak and unwsry into the pur.
chase Of tiokets" By extensive advertise
msnts containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may bs admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was argued By respon.
dents' counsel, that the people OF this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
ct all times TO take the despersts chances
which lottsries afford. and that NO In
furious effects upon the morals Of the peo.
Ole would result II this game Of chance
was allowed 70 proosed.
This question 10 one that must b con-
sidered - settled BY the adoption Of The
constitutional provision lex parts Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case. 10 which We have
frequently referred. 10 was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . msritorious
character, and that u differed. In this 70.
speot, from the lottsriss where the mana.
agers we're 70 receive the lions share Of
the pvsdts. This Court, In snswsr 70 this
argument. said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
suoh a 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme, IL IL not probable that they would
have been forbidden BY the Constitution
or by Law. Its misohiefs are certainly not
90 apparent - II its prizes were to be paid
In money, or - II would bel framed for
the purpose Of enticing the neoessitous and
improviient into it, hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according 70
the views We may sntsrtain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon the exeou.
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 10 were 70 b ad'
mittsd that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
lees In its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making 10 By judieial con.
struetion an exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction In
this respect, % 10 the nature OF the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In Il. 1t IL their boundsn duty 70 declare
the Law. a..f..
"The law knows no person; IL 10 not
made for tho individual man, but for men.
AZ the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL essrs
Alike upon the Just and unjust" State
W. Pierce, 8 New, 904. :.
Il smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes NO distinctions. Submission 70 IL
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It IL unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon'
dsuh' council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend 70 violate the law.
From the views already expressed u 10
apparent that 10 would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 70
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
tue Act Of the Legislature. In sithsr event
their Acts would b without warrant OF
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court Il that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise, BY virtue Of any Law, 70 sdver'
use, print, ciroulats or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the "Nsvsda
Benevolent Association" within this Stats.
or 70 do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Assoolation," approved March Q. 1881
fstat.. 1881. 1851; and that the costs Of
this proceeding b. taxed against them.
HAwLxY, J.
We concur; LEoNAlp, O. J.
BILxNAY, ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.