Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-14

language they did In the concluding sen.
tenoe, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
sts be allowed" These words clearly
shov that u was not intended that any
lottery should b authorised By this State
for any purpose.
The words "by this Btats," - used In
our Constit tuition. and the words I'm thil
State" cor within this State" - used
In the Constitutions Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b authorized BY this
State, NOR shall the sale Of lottery tickets
be allowed"
This language applies 70 all lotteries,
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the 6tate BY the church
by private individuals; BY benevolent and
charitable associations, and BY corpora.
tions.
No lottery Of any, kind can bs author.
ized by the Legislature under the present
Constitution. 80 =
We again repeat what, IL seems to rs,
must be svident 70 every unbiased and i'm.
partial mind. that he language Of the
constitutional provision II too plain for
argument. That under u The Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery In this StAte,
and tha. the ACT approved March Q. 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that u was
unnecessary TO add anything 10 the reason
ing Of this Court In er parfe Blanchard.
which 10, Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But IL has been attempted, by . desire
upon our part, TO show that no authority
could 10 found In any OF the sdjudicated
cases In the United States 10 sustain the
position contended for BY respondents
and that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either Of these
points. that has not heretofore been do.
cided adversely to them BY the Courts OF
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially the same ~
our own.
Il is 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. II
makes no difference whether u was set on
foot purely for tho purpose OF raising rov.
enue for the benefit OF the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged To that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary prizes and min
ister to tho love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
mos. revolving form directly TO that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentiment where
the managers receive . pecuniary proht
aud enlist "a corps Of active seducers to
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise.
ments containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances TO acquire sudden
wealth.
II may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was srgued by respon.
dents counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
st all times 10 take the desperate chances
which lotteries Afford, aud that NO In.
jurisus effects upon the morals Of the peo.
pie would result II this game Qf chance
was allowed 10 proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidercd a. settled BY the adoption OF the
constitutional provision lex parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 70 which We have
frequently referred, 10 was claimed that
the sntorprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that 1t differed, In this re.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were 10 receive the lions share OF
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such ~ 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme. II 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden BY the Constitution
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
90 apparent - II its prizes were to be paid
In money. or - Il would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improvilent into its hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according to
tho views we may entertain Of tho probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu'
tion Of the 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 10 were 10 DO I'D.
mittsd 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, a. to the nature Of the trans.
action or the character OF persons engaged
In II. 1t 10 their bounden duty 10 declare
the law.
"The law knows NO person; IL 10 not
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the just and unjust" lshte
W. Pierce. 8 New, 3OA. >.
It smiles and frowns upon all slike' ~
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 its
authority IL incumbent upon oil.
Third-It is unnecessary TO discus any
Of the other points suggested BY respon'
dsuts' council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend 10 violate tue law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that II would make no difference
whether respondents base their right TO
act Ia the premises under the articles oi
incorporation or under tho provisions OF
tue Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant oi
Law.
The judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have NO right. liberty. or
franchise, by virtue Of any law, TO adver'
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets 10
the scheme or enterprise OF the I" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or TO do any Of the acts specified in the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March 0. 1881
[stat., 1881, 1851; and that the costs oi
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLxY, j.
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BELKSAP, ].
NOTHING SHORT OF