Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-06-30

revenue, they would net have used the
language they did IN the concluding sen.
tencs, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
eu be allowed" These words clearly
shov that 10 wss not intended that any
lottery should b authorized By this State
for any purpose.
The words "by this State" - used In
our Constitution. and the words "in this
STATE" cor within this Ststs," q used
In the Consttutons Of New York. have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottssy shall b authorised By this
STATE, nor shall the sale Of lottery sisksts
be Allowed"
This language applies 70 oil lottsries.
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the State By the church ;
By privsts individuals; BY bsnsvolsnt and
charitable associations, and BY oorpora-
tions. ~
No lottery Of any kind can be sutbor.
ICED BY the Lsgislaturs under the present
Constitution. . . . . . =
We again repeat what, IL seems 70 ~,
must BE- evident 70 every unbiased and I'm.
partial mind. that the language Of the
constitutional provision II too plain for
argument. That undsr 10 the Legislature
cannot authortxs any lottery IN this State,
and that the Act approved March ., 1881,
10 null and void.
We arc conscious Of the fact that u was
unnecessary TO add anything 10 the reason.
fpg Of this Court In &C rarts Blanchard.
which 10, Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
Bat 10 has been attempted. BY desire
upon our part, 70 show that no authority
could 10 found In any OF the adjudicated
cases In the United States 70 sustain the
position oontended for By respondents; |;
aud that no argument has been advanced
BY respondents, upon either Of these
points, that has NOT hsretofors been do.
cidsd adversely 10 them BY the Courts Of
other Ststes, where the constitutional
provisions are Substantially the same -
our own.
Il il proper 70 add that We have arrived
st 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 the purpose Of raising rev.
enue for the benefit Of the "Insans and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged To that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of peouniary prizes and min
lister to the love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the srossest and
most revolving form directly 10 that sordid
passion, and 70 NO other sentiment where
the managers receive . pecuniary prodt
aud enlist "a corps Of active seducers 10
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 bs admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was argued by respon-
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially Q gambling people. ready
st all times 10 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 to proceed.
This question 10 ono that must be con.
sidsrsd a. settled by the adoption Of the
provision lex parts Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of msritorious
and that IL differed. In this 70.
spect, from the lottsriss where the mana.
ayers were 10 receive the lions share Of
tho profits. The Court, In answer 70 this
argument, said:
III no lotteries bad existed excepting
such - 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme, IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. In misohisfs are certainly not
20 apparent % II Its prisss were to be paid
In money, or - IL would be II framed for
the purpose Of snticing the necessitous and
improvilent into Its hazards. But this
case cannot bs decided according 10
the views ws may entertain Of the probable
good or evil couseq qusnt upon the sxecu.
tion Of the schsms. 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 10 we're 70 b I'D.
mittsd that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In its consequences. IL would form no
ground for making 10 BY judicial con.
struction an exception 10 the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction, In
this respect, % 70 the nature Of the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In IL. II 10 their boundsn duty 70 declare
the law.
"The law knows no person u 10 not
made for tho individual man, but for msn.
A. the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the lust and unjust" State
Dl.rno Me- Q0k 4
II smiles and frowus upon oil alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission TO IL
authority 10 inoumbsnt upon all.
Third-It 10 unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon.
dsna' council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend 10 violate the law.
From the views already expressed II 10
apparent that 10 would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 70
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
the Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would b without warrant OF
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents have no right liberty. or
franchise, BY virtue Of any law, 70 sdvsr.
,iss, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the I" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this ststs,
or 70 do any Of the scts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March Q. 1881
[Stat.. 1881. 1851 and that the costs OF
this proceeding b. taxed against them.
HAwLIY, ].
We concur: LIoNAhp, O. ].
BELxSAP, j.
THE SUN FOR 1881.