Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-27

Ing OF this Court In ex pdrts Blanchard.
which 10. Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points NO have discussed.
Bot 10 has been attempted, by . deatre
upon our part. 70 show that no authority
could b found In any Of the sdjudicated
osses 10 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 dc.
cided adversely 10 them by tho Courts OF
other States, where the constitutional
provisions arc substantially tho same ~
our own
II is proper 10 add that We have arrived
NJ The conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality. or i'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. 1t
makes no difference whether IL was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the benefit OF the "lnsane n
Charitable Fund" OF this State. or whether
Il belonged To that class Of lotteries that
are made mp OF peouniary prizes and min.
lister to the love Of gain I; 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 Q p~ecunisry proat
and enlist "a corps Of active seducers TO
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise.
msnts containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances to 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
arc essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times to take the desperate chances
which lotteries afford, and that no In.
furious effects upon the morals Of tho PEG.
pie would result II this game Of chance
was allowed 10 proceed.
This question 10 q that must be con.
sidsred Is settled BY the adoption Of tho
constitutional provision OK 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. 10 this 70.
spect, from tho lotteries where the mans.
ayers were to receive the lions share Of
the proHh. The Court, In nswer 10 this
argument. said:
elf no lotteries had existed excepting
such - IL contained In the Art Union
scheme. IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. Iu misohisfs are certainly not
90 apparent - II Its prizes were to DO paid
In money, or - 10 would be II framed for
the purpose OF enticing the necessitous and
improviient into its hazards. But this
case csnno. DO decided according 10
the views We may entertain Of the probable
good or evil con equent upon the execu.
ton OF the scheme. Tho Constitution
took away tho 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 70 b Cd.
mitted that the scheme 10 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"
Courts cannot make any distinction. In
this respect, ~ 10 the nature OF the trans.
sction or the character Of persons engaged
In II. 1t 10 their bounden duty TO declare
the Law.
1.-THE law knows no person /; II 10 not
made for tho individual man. but for men.
Al the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" Estate
W. Pierce, 8 New, 804.
1t smiles aud frowns upon all alike. II
makes NO distinctions. Submission 70 its
authority 10 incumbent upon oil.
Third-It 10 unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested by respon.
dents' council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend to violate tue law.
From the views already expressed it's
apparent that II would make no difference
whether respondents base their right TO
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
tue Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant OF
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court IL that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise. BY virtue 9f any law. to advsr.
tiss, 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 the
statute. ito aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March Q. 1851
[stst. 1881, 1851; and that the costs Of
this proceeding be taxed against them.
HAwLEY, j.
We concur LEONARD, O. ].
BILKNAP, ].