Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-21

Ing Of this Court In &c parts Blanchard,
which IL, OF itself, absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points No have discussed.
But 10 has been attempted, BY . desire
upon our part, TO show that NO authority
could be found In any Of the adjudioated
Gases In the United States 10 sustain the
poeition commended for BY respondents;
and that NO argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either OF these
points, that has not heretofore been do.
oided adversely to them BY tho Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially tho same -
our OWE.
II IA proper TO add that We have arrived
At the conclusion stated without consider.
ing the question Of the morality. or i'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. 1t
msies no difference whether IL was set on
foot purely for tho purpose Of raising res.
enus for the benefit OF the "lnsane q
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged TO 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 TO that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecuniary proht
and enlist 80 corps Of active seducers 70
draw the weak and unwary into the pur-
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise.
msnts containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances 70 acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may be 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 lotteries afford, and that no In.
furious effects upon the morals Of the PEG.
ple would result II this game Of chance
was allowed 70 proceed.
This question 10 q that must DO con.
sidsred % settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision OK psrte Darling.
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which We have
frequently referred. IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that IL differed. In this 70.
spect, from tho lotteries where the mana.
ayers we're TO receive the lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer TO this
argument, said:
elf NO lotteries had existed excepting
such q 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme. Il 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. Ia misohisfs are certainly not
20 apparent - II its prizes were to BE- paid
In money, or % IL would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improviient into ih hazards. But this
case cannot DO decided according TO
the views We may entertain OF the probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
ton Of the scheme. The Constitution
whether this or any other lottery wIs Of
good or evil tendency. and certainly did
not intend TO confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II Il we're to DO I'd.
mitted that the scheme IL entirely harm.
less In its consequences. II would form NO
ground for making II by judicial con.
struction an exception to the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction, In
this respect, - to the nature OF the trans
action or the character Of persons engaged
In 1t. 1t 10 their bounden duty to declare
the law.
"The law knows no person I; II 10 not
made for tho individual man. but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls. 90 IL bears
alike upon the just and unjust" lbtate
VI. Pierce, 3 New, 304.
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 unnecessary to 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 the views already expressed II 10
apparent that IL would make 10 difference
whether respondents base their right 10
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions OF
the Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of
law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have nc right. liberty. or
franchise. BY virtue 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 10 do any Of the acts specified In the
statute. ITO aid the Nevada Benevolent
Annexation" approved March Q. 1881
lStst.. 1881. 1851; and that the costs Of
this proceeding b. taxed against them.
We concur LEONARD, O.. ].
BELKNAP, j.