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


Language they did In the concluding sen.
tenoe, "Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
eta be allowed" These words clearly
show that II was not intended that any
lottery should be authorized BY this State
The words "by this state," - used In
our Constitution. and ths words in this
State" cor within this Sate," a used
In the Constitutions Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b authorised BY this
State, nor shall the sale Of lottsry tioksts
be allowed"
This language applies 10 all lotteries.
whether public or private. To lotteries
conducted by the stats BY the church ;
by private individuals; BY benevolent and
charitable associations. and by corpora
tions.
No lottery Of any kind oan be author.
ICED BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution. = =
We again repeat what. II seems 70 rs,
mnst be evident 70 every unbiased and i'm.
partial mind. that the language Of the
titutional provision q too plain for
argument. That under u the Legislature
cannot authorise any lottery IN this State.
and that the Act approved March ., 1881,
Is null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact thst II was
unnecessary 70 add anything 10 the resson-
ing Of this Court In sz parts Blanchard.
which 10. Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But Il has been attempted. BY deaire
upon our part, TO show that no authority
could 10 found In any OF the sdjudiosted
cases In the United States to sustain ths
position oontended 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 arc substantially the same as
our own.
It il 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 IL was set on
foot purely for tho purpose OF raising res.
epue for the benefit OF the "lnsane and
Charitable Fund" OF this State, or whether
IL belonged 10 that class OF lotteries that
are mado up Of pscuniary prizes and min
lister to the love OF gain whose schemes
address themselves In tho grossest and
most revolving form directly TO that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
the managers receive Q pecunisry proht
and enlist 80 corps Of active seducers TO
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise.
.,.,.. .ont.tn;oo briIl,.nt rictn res NJ ths
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
It may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. Is was argued By respon-
dents' counsel, that the people OF this Stste
are essentially . gambling people, ready
ct all times to 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.
sidsred Is settled by the adoption OF the
constitutional provision ex 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 IL differed, 10 this 70.
spsct, from the lotteries where the mana.
agers were to receive the lions share OF
the profits. The Court, in answer 10 this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such % 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme, IL IL not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. Its mischiefs are certainly not
90 apparent as II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or - Il would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improviisnt into Its hazards. But this
case cannot bs decided according TO
the views We may entertain OF the probable
good or evil consequent upon tho execu.
tion 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 10 confer that power on the
Judicial tribunals. II IL we're TO be sd.
mitted 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 It. 1t 10 their boundsn duty 70 declare
the law.
"The law knows no person; II 10 not
made for the individual man. but for men.
As the dew OF hesvsn falls, 90 II bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" Stats
w. Pierce, 8 New, 904.
II smiles and frowns upon oil alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission TO iu
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 unnecessary 70 discus any
Of the other points suggested BY fespon'
dsuts' council.
We will not presume. In advance. that
respondents intend TO violate the law.
From the views already expressed u 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 70
act in the premises under the articles OF
incorporation or under the provisions OF
tile Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant OF
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 In
the scheme or enterprise Of the " 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
I Stat, 1881, 1851; and that the costs OF
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LEONARD, @. j.
BELKNAP, ].
THE SUN FOR 1881. .