Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-06

revenue, tney Wouiu not nave useo tne
language they did In the concluding sen.
teuoe, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
eta be allowed" These words clearly
shov that Il was not intended that any
lottery should be authorized BY this State
The words "by this State" - used In
our Constitution. and the words "in this
stste." cor within this Htate," q used
In the Constitutions Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall be authorised by this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed"
This language spplies 70 all lotteries.
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted By the State BY the church ;
by private individuals; by benevolent and
Charitable associations, and by corpora.
uops.
No lottery Of any kind can be author.
lied BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution. = . q . .
We again repeat what. II seems 70 us.
must be evident 70 every unbiased and i'm.
partial mind. that the language Of the
stitutional provision 10 too plain for
argument. That under Il the Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery In this State.
and that the Act approved March 9, 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that II was
unnecessary to add anything TO the reason.
Ing OF this Court In &c pdrts Blanchard.
whioh 10. OF itself. absolutely oonoluaive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But IL has been attempted. by . desire
upon our part, to show that no authority
could bs found In any Of the adjudicated
cases In the United Stsses 10 sustain the
position contsnded 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 as
our own. i.
II is proper 10 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. It
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the benefit OF the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
Il belonged 10 that class Of lotteries that
arc 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 TO no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecuniary pront
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.
II may DO admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was argued BY respon.
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
at oil 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 TO proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidered ss settled by the adoption Of the
provision ex psrte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case. 10 which We have
referred. IL Was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of meritorious
and that II 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:
"If 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 Consultation
or by law. Its misohisfs are certainly not
10 apparent - II its prizes were to be paid
In money, or % 10 would bs II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
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. 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 10 confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II it we're to be I'D.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm
lees In It's consequences, II would form no
ground for making IL by Judicial con.
struction 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 II. 1t 10 their boundsn duty TO declare
the law.
"Ths law knows no person II 10 not
made for the individual man, but for men.
Az the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
W. Pierce, 8 New, 604.
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. It
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 Its
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. In advance, that
intend 10 violate the law.
From the visws already expressed IL 10
apparent that IL would make no differences
whether respondents base their right 70
act in the premises under tho articles OF
or under the provisions Of
tile Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant Of
Law.
The Judgment Of this court 10 that the
have no right. liberty, or
franc chiss, BY virtuo Of any law, to sdver-
tise, 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 tho
statute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
approved March Q, 1851
TStst., 1881, 1861; and that the costs OF
this proceeding bs taxed .gains. them.
HAwLrY. ].
We concur: LEONARD, O. j.
BELxsAP, ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.