Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-22

csses In the United States 10 sustain the
rosition commended for by respondents;
and that no argument has been advanced
hv respondens, upon either OF these
,o,nts. thst has not heretofore been do.
ridsa adversely TO them by the Courts OF
othor Shtes. where the constitutional
uroyisions arc substantially tho same as
our own. -..u.-,v.a
Al the conclusion stated without consiaer-
ing the question Of tho moraiity, OF In.
morality Of this particular scheme. ~
makes no difference whether u was set On
foot purely for the purpose Of raising tev,
enue for the benefit OF the Insane ,na
| Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whetner
4 belonged TO that class Of lotteries that
arc made up Of pecuniary prizes and min.
lister to the love OF gain +; whose schemes
| address themselves In the grossest q
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecuniary pront
and enlist 50 corps Of active seducers 70
draw tho weak and unwary into the pur-
| chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise.
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
It may be admitted for the purposes OF
this decision, a. was argued BY respon-
dents counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
Of 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 ono that must be con-
sidered Is settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision lex parte Darling,
recently decided.)
In the Art Union case, TO which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that II differed. In this re-
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were TO receive the lions share OF
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such Is IL contained In the Art Union
scheme. 1t Is not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
so apparent as II its prizes were to be paid
In money, or as 10 would be II framed for
tho purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
~improvident into Its hazards. But this
case cannot DO decided according to
tho views wo may entertain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu-
ton Of tho 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 the
judicial tribunals. II IL were TO DO ad.
mitted that the scheme IL entirely harm.
less 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"
"Tho law knows no person /; II 10 no
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dow Of heaven falls, 80 II bears
Sliko upon the just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce, 8 New, 30i.I
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission to Its
authority Ia incumbent upon all.
Third-lt is unnecessary TO discuss any
OF the other points suggested by respon.
dents council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend to violate tho law.
From the views already expressed Is 10
apparent that 1t would make no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under tho articles Of
incorporation or under tho provisions Of
the Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of
law.
The judgment OF this Court Is that tho
respondents have nc right. liberty. or
franchise, by virtue Of any law, to adver.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
tho scheme or enterprise Of tho Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, 80 aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March 0. 1881
Stat, 1881. 1861; and that the costs Of
this proceeding DO taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LEONARD, O. ].
RHIHyAp J.