Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-25

Ing Of this Court In sr pdrfs Blanchard.
which Is. Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both OF the points We have discussed.
But IL has been attempted, by . desire
upon our part. 70 show that no authority
could b found In any Of the adjudicated
cases In the United States to sustain the
position contended for BY respondents /;
aud that no argument has been advanced
BY respondents, upon either Of these
points, that has moi heretofore been de.
cidsd adversely 10 them by the Courts Of
other States, where tho constitutional
provisions are substantially tho same -
our own.
II is proper 10 add that We have arrived
NJ 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 wa set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
epue for the benefit Of the "lnsanc and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged TO that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecunisry prizes 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 proht
and enlist " Q corps Of active seducers TO
draw the weak and unwsry into the pur'
Chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise
msnts containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may DO admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was srgued By respon.
dents' counsel. that the people OF this Btate
are essentially . gambling people, resdy
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 10 proceed.
This question 10 q that must be con.
sidered Is 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 WA claimed that
the enterprise was really OF . meritorious
character, and that IL differed. In this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers we're to receive the lions share OF
the proHts. Tho Court. In answer to this
argument, said:
elf no lotteries had existed excepting
such - 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme, II ID not probable that they would
have been forbidden by tho Constitution
or BY Law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
10 apparent - II It's prizes were to b. paid
In money, or - it would be II framed for
the purpose OF enticing tbs neccssitous and
improvilent into Its hazards. But this
80. a.anak he 1aatI.I aNN0FttnR IN
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 TO be ad-
mitted that the scheme Is entirely harm
less In its consequences, Ii would form NO
ground for making 1t by Judicial con.
struction IN exception to the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction. In
this respect, as 10 the nature OF tho trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In II. 1t IL their bounden duty TO declare
the law.
"The law knows no person +; 1t 10 not
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dew OF heaven falls, 80 1t bears
alike upon the just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce, 8 New, 3O4.l
It smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes NO distinctions. Submission TO tts
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It II unnecessary to discuss any
Of tho other points suggested by respon'
dents council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend to violate the law.
From the views already expressed II 10
apparent that IL would make no differences
whether respondents base their right 70
act In tho premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
tile Act OF the Legislature. In sither 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.
tiss, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the :" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, to aid the Nsvads Benevolent
Association" approved March 9. 1851
[Stst.. 1881. 1861; and that the costs Of
this proceeding be- taxed against them.
HAwLEY, j.
We concur LEONARD, @. ].
BELxsAP, j.