Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-08

revenue, they would net have used tht
language they did In the concluding sen
tence, " Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick
ets be allowed" These words clearly
shov that 1t was not intended that AMI
lottery should be authorized by this Stat,
for any purpose.
Tho words "by this State" ~ used II
our Constitution, and the words in thiI
/ STATE" cor within this State," a used
IN the Constitutions Of New York, havs
virtually the same meaning.
"No iottsry shall be authorised By thil
STATE, nor shall the sale Of lottery tlokstl
be allowed"
This language applies to oil lotteries
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the State by the church
by private individuals (; BY benevolent and
charitable associations. and BY oorpsra
tons.
lied by the Legislature under the pressn,
Constitution. . =
We again repeat what, Il seems 10 rs,
must be evident 70 every unbiased and i'm
partial mind. that the language Of the
constitutional provision ID too plain fol
argument. That under IL the Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery In this State,
and that the ACT approved March Q, 1881,
10 null and void.
We arc CONSCIOUS Of tho fact that u wal
unnecessary To add anything 10 the reason.
ing Of this Court In er parts Blanchard.
which 10, Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But Il has been attempted. BY . dssirs
upon our part, to show that NO authority
could 10 found In any Of the sdjudicated
cases In the United States to sustain the
position oontended for BY respondents
aud that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either Of these
points, that has not heretofore been do.
oided adversely 10 them BY the Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the Same -
our own.
Il Is proper TO add that wo have arrived
st the conclusion stated without consider.
ing the question OF tho morality. or I'm.
morality OF this particular scheme. II
makes no difference whether Il was set on
foot purely for the purpose Of raising rev.
enue for the benefit OF the "insane ana
Charitable Fund.- Of this State, or whether
IL belonged 10 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 and
most revolving form directly TO that sordid
passion, and TO no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecuniary profit
and enlist ga 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 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may be admitted for the purposes OF
this decision. % was argued BY respon.
dents counsel, that the people OF this Ststs
are 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 the peo'
ple would result II this game Of chance
was allowed to proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidsred ss settled by the adoption OF the
constitutional provision ex parts Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case. TO which we have
frequently referred, 10 was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . msritorious
character, and that IL differed. in this 70.
spect. from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were 10 receive the lions share Of
the proHts. The Court. In answer 70 this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such - 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme. 10 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or BY law. Its misohiefs are certainly not
20 apparent a. II its prizes were to be paid
In money, or ~ II would be II framed for
the purpose Of snticing the necessitous and
improvident 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 to confer that power on tbs
judicial tribunals. II II we're TO be id.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm
less In is consequences, 10 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, as 70 the nature Of the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In II. 1t IL their bounden duty to declare
the law.
"The law knows no person; II 10 not
made for tho individual man, but for men.
Az the dew Of heaven falls, 30 II bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
w. Pierce, 8 New, S04.
II smiles aud frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 III
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 Unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon'
deuts' council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intend TO violate tue law.
From the views already expressed IL ID
apparent that II would mako no difference
whether respondents base thsir right 70
act in the premises under the articles oi
incorporation or under the provisions oi
the Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant oi
law.
The Judgment Of this Court IL that the
respondents have NO. right. liberty. OF
franchise, BY virtue Of any law. TO adver.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets IN
the scheme or enterprise Of the "Nevads
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March Q. 1881
Istat., 1881. 1856 and that the costs oi
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLIY, J.
We concur: LrosARp, @. ].
BELxSAP, ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.