Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-25
cold HILL STOREY SATURDAY EVENING JUNE To- 1881

revenue, they would nsi have used the
language they did IN Che ccnoluding SEN
tenee. :" Nor shall the salS'6f lottery tick
ets be allowed" ThdBz words clearly
sbov that IL was mot 66ndsd that any
lottery should be aushoFissd By this State
for any purpose.
our Constitution. and W words" In this
State" "or within this 6tAte," - used
| IN The Constitutions Of Neg fork, have
virtually the same mssnitf
"No lottery shall b su{horissd BY this
| State, nor shall The sals . lotpsy tickets
This language applies ~ Ill lotteries.
whether public OF priv61ost 10 lotteries
conducted By the Stats ~ Abe ohuroh ;
by private individuals " bsneyolsnt and
charitable associauons. I'D By corpora.
| tions. r ss3!fea.,
lied py the tegislaturs unfDs the present
Constitution. .
We again repeat what u seems 70 us.
must be evident 70 every 1nbiased and i'm.
partial mind, that ~ laasuase Of the
itutionsl provistoa 4 soo plain for
argument. That undsx u ~ Legislature
cannot sutnorize any iottGdJ 30 this State,
and that the Aot spfsl t6dsxsrch ., 1881,
10 null and void. ~.
We are conscious Of the fact that II was
unnecessary 10 add anything 10 the reason.
ing of this Court In ex parts Blanchard.
which Ii, 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 be found In any Of the adjudicated
cases In the United States 70 sustain the
position contended for BY respondents !
aud that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either OF these
points. that has not heretofore been de.
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 tho morality, or i'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. 1t
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
epue for the benefit Of the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
II belonged to that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary prizes and min.
ister 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.
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
It may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. ss was srgued by respon-
dents' counsel, that the people OF this State
arc essentially q gambling people, ready
at all times to take tho 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 to proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidered AZ settled by the adoption OF the
constitutional provision OK parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which we have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
tho enterprise was really OF . meritorious
character, and that IL differed, In this re.
spect. from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were to receive tho lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer 70 this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such as IL contained In the Art Union
scheme, IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by Law. It's misohiefs arc certainly not
10 apparent az II Its prizes were to DO paid
In money, or a. IL would bo II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improviLent into its hazards. But this
case cannot DO decided according to
the views We may entertain OF the probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
tion Of tho 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 the
judicial tribunals. II II we're 70 DO i'd.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm
less In its consequences, II would form no
ground for making 10 by judicial con.
struction an exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction, In
this respect, AZ to the nature OF the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
in 1t. lis their bounden duty 10 declare
the law.
1.-THE law knows no person II 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" State
vs.. Pierce, 8 New. 304.
Ia .,H fra.na ,rnu all alita IL
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 Its
authority is incumbent upon all.
Third-It is unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested by respon.
dents council.
We will not presume, In advance, that
respondents intond 10 violate tue law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that Il would make no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act in the promises under the articles OF
incorporation or under the provisions Of
tue Act OF tho Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court is that tho
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise, by virtue VI any law. to.adver.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
tho 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 0. 1881
| (stat., 1881, l66Ij and that tho costs OF
this proceeding b. taxed against them.
HAwLEY, j.
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BELKSAP, ].
THE sim F0R 1891