Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-27

cases In the United States to sustain the
position commended for by respondents;
| and that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either OF these
points, that has not heretofore been do
| cided adversely TO them by the Courts Of
other States, where tho constitutional
provisions are substantially the same -
our own.
a the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality. or IN.
morality Of this particular scheme. IL
makes no difference whether 1t was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the benefit OF the Insane q
Charitable Fund.- Of this State. or whether
Il belonged 70 that class Of lotteries that
are made up OF pecuniary prizes and min
lister to the lovo Of gain ; whose schemes
| address themselves In tho grossest .
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecuniary profit
and enlist "a corps Of active seducers to
draw the weak and unwsry into the pur.
| chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise
ments containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
It may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision, a. was argued BY reepon-
dents counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people. ready
at all times TO take tho 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 one that must DO con.
sidered % settled by tho adoption OF the
constitutional provision lex parte Darling,
recently decided
In the Art Union case, to which we have
frequently referred, 10 was claimed that
tho enterprise was really OF Q meritorious
character, and that IL differed, In this re-
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were TO receive tho lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"Lfn 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. It's mischiefs are certainly not
so apparent % II Its prizes were to DO paid
In money, or as 1t would DO II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the neccssitous and
~improvident 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. Tho 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 tho
judicial tribunals. II IL were TO be id.
mitted that the scheme IL entirely harm.
less In its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making IL by judicial con.
struction an exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
"The law knows no person ; IL 10 NO
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls, 20 II bears
alike upon tho Just and unjust" tState
vs.. Pierce, 8 New, 30i.
II smiles and frowns upon oil alike. II
makes nc distinctions. Submission to Its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It is unnecessary 10 discuss any
OF the other points suggested by respon-
dents council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend 10 violate the law.
From tho views already expressed u ID
apparent that 1t would make no difference
whether respondents base their right To
act In tho premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions oil
the Actof tho Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of
law.
The judgment OF this Court Ia that the
respondents havo no right. liberty. OF
franchise. by virtue Of any law, to adver'
tise. print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the "Nevads
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of tho acts specified In the
statute. "to aid tho Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March 0, 1881
lStat., 1881. 1861; and that tho costs Of
this proceeding be taxed against Thorn.
HAwLEY, J..
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BELKNAP, j.