Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-29

cases In tho United States to sustain the
position commanded 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 a.
our own.
II Is proper To add that We have arrived
at the conclusion stated without consider
ing tho question OF the morality, or i'm
morality OF this particular scheme. It
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for tho purpose Of raising rev.
enue for the benefit OF tho "Inssne and
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
II belonged 10 that class Of lotteries that
arc made up Of pecuniary prizes and min.
lister to tho love Of gain ; whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly 10 that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
tho managers receive . ~pecunlary profit
and enlist ga corps Of active seducers 70
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 DO admitted for the purposes Of
this decision, as was srgued BY respon.
dents counsel, thatth people Of this State
are essentially Q 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 PEG.
ple would result II this game Of chance
was allowed TO proceed.
This question 10 ono that must be con.
sidered IS settled by tho adoption Of the
constitutional provision lex parte Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 10 which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of Q meritorious
character, and that II differed, In this re-
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were TO receive the lions share Of
the profits. Tho Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such as Is contained In the Art Union
scheme, II IL not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
so apparent Is II Its prizes were to be paid
III money! Ut - ~ Woulu ~ ~ tIbLutQ lOE
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improvident into Its hazards. But this
case cannot DO decided according to
the views wo may entertain OF the probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
ton OF the scheme. The 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 II were to be I'D.
| mitted that tho scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In Its consequences, II would form no
ground for making IL by judicial con-
struction an exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
"The law knows no person II 10 nc
made for tho individual man, but for men,
As the dew OF heaven falls, 30 1t bear
alike upon the just and unjust" tStatt
VS.. Pierce, 8 New, 30i.l
It smiles and frowns upon all alike. i
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 IL
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It Is unnecessary TO discuss 40!
OF the other points suggested by respon
dents' council.
We will not presume, In advance, tina
E~ebpOuucuto iutcuo W NbDihto tuo ibWs
From the views already expressed IL !
apparent that II would make no difference
whether respondents base their right Il
act in the premises under the articles o
incorporation or under the provisions o
the Act Of the Legislature. In either even
their Acts would DO without warrant o
law.
The Judgment Of this Court Is that tn
respondents have no right. liberty. o
franchise, BY virtue Of any law, to adver
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets II
tho scheme or enterprise Of the Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State
or TO do any Of tho acts specified In th,
statute. 40 aid the Nevada Benevolen
Association" approved March Q. 1881
Stat. 1881. l66; aud that the costs o.
this proceeding DO taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We CONCUR: LEONARD, @. ].
BELKNAP, j.