Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-19

| revenue, they would mot have used the
| Language they did In the concluding som
tencs, /" Nor shsll ths sale Of lottery tick
ets b allowed" These words clearly
ahow that u was not intended that any
lottery should be asfhorissd By this State
| for any purpose.
The words By shis State" - used In
our Consti tution, and the words "in this
State" cor within this stats," - used
| In the Consultations Of New York, have
i virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b authorised BY this
| STATE. nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
bs allowed"
This language applies 10 al lotteries,
whsshsr public o. private. To lotteries
conducted BY the etats By the church !;
by privsts individuals By benevolent and
charitable associations. and BY corpora
| lions.
No lottery of any kind can BE- suthor.
ised BY the tegislstlrs under the present
| Constitution. . .
We again repeat what. u seems TO n,
must be evident 70 every unbiased and i'm.
partial mind. that the language OF the
oonstitutional pfovision IL too plain for
argument. That undsr u the Legislature
cannot authorize any lo,sssy u This State.
and that the Act approved March ., 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that u was
unnecessary 70 add anything 70 the reason
lug Of this Court In i. sx parts Blanchard.
which 10. OF itself. absolutely conducive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But Il has been attempted. BY . deaire
upon our part. TO show that no authority
could be found In any Of the sdjudicated
cases in the United States 70 sustain the
position oontsnded for By respondents
and that no argument has been advanced
BY respondents, upon either Of these
points, that has not heretofore been do.
cidsd adversely TO them BY the Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the same -
our own.
Il Is proper 10 add that We have arrived
Al 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 was set on
foot purely for tho purpose Of raising req.
enus for the benefit Of the "Insans and
Charitable Fund" OF this State, or whether
IL belonged 70 that class Of lotteries that
are made mp Of pecuniary prizes and min
ister TO 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 where
the managers receive Q pecuniary profit
and enlist "a corps Of active seducers 70
draw the weak and unwary into tho pur.
chase Of tiokets" BY extensive advertise
msnts containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances to 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 desperate chances
which lottsries Afford, and that NO In.
jurieus effects upon the morals OF the peo.
pie would result II this game Of chance
was allowed TO proceed.
This question 10. ons that must bscon.
sidered a. settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision ex parts 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 II differed, In this 70.
spsot, from the lottsris1 where tbs mana.
ayers were 70 receive the lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer 10 this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such q IL contained In the Art Union
scheme, Il 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden BY the Consultation
or BY Law. Ih misehiefs are certainly not
10 apparent - II its prizes were to be paid
In money, or - IL would be II framed for
tho purpose Of enticing the neoessitous and
improviient into its hazards. But this
case cannot bs decided according TO
the views We may entertain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon tbs execu-
tion Of the schsms. The Constitution
took away the power Of determining
whether this or any other lottsry was OF
good or evil tendency. and certainly did
not intend 10 confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II 10 were 70 be I'D.
mittsd that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In its consequences, 10 would form no
ground for making 10 BY judicial CON.
struction an exception y 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 sf persons engaged
In u. 1t II their boupdBn duty 70 dsolass
the Law.
"The law knows no person II 10 not
made for tho individual man, bat for msn.
Al the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" Btae
70. Pierce. 8 New. S04.
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 ~
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Thlrd-It II unnscesssry 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon-
dsuts' council.
We will not presums, In advance, that
respondents intend TO violate the law.
From the views already expressed II 10
| apparent that il would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 70
act IN the premises undsr the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions OF
their Acts would be without warrant Of
Law.
The judgmsnt Of this Court Il that the
respondents have no right. liberty, or
franchise. BY virtue Of any Law. 70 sdver.
tiss, print, eirculsss OF ssft any tickets II
| the scheme or sntsrprise Of the hevAda
Benevolent Association" within this STATE,
or to do any Of the s.n specified N the
statute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
| Association" approved March .. lSS!
| tStat.. 1881. 1851; and that the costs OF
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
| HAwLEI, J.
We concur: LxoSARD, 0.J.
BxLxNAP, ].
NOTHING SHORT OF
unmisssksbls benefits conferred upon tens Of