Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-18

revenue, thsy would not have used the
| language they did In the concluding ssn.
tenoe, I" Nor shall the sale Of lottery tick.
| s,s b. allowed" These words clearly
shov that u wss not intsndsd that Any
| lottery should b sushorised By this 6tats
for any purpose.
The words "by this State" - used In
our Constit n ton, and the words " In this
Stats, ,"."or within this 6hts," - ussd
| In he Consultations Of New York. havs
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottsry shall b authorised BY this
State, nor shall The sale Of lottsry tickets
bs allowed"
This language applies 70 al lotteries.
whsthsr public OF private. To lotteries
conducted BY the 6tsts By the church
By privats individuals I; By bsnsvolsnt and
charitable associations. and By corpora
tons.
No lottery Of any hind osn bs author.
| ised By the tsgislatars under the present
Constitution. - = =
We again rspSat what, u seems 10 n,
must be evident 70 every unbiased and In.
partial mind. that the language Of the
constitutional pfovision 10 700 plain for
argument. That under u the Lsgislsturs
cannot authoriss any lottsry in this State,
and that the Act approved March ., 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 sz yarts Blanchard.
which 10, Of itsslf. absoiutsly conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
Ia sssa0.nfAA k0 AoatRo
upon our part. 10 show that no authority
could 10 found In any Of the adjudicated
cases In the United States 10 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 do.
cidsd adversely TO them BY the Courts Of
other States. where the constitutional
provisions are Substantially the same -
our own.
It is proper 10 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 the purpose Of raising rev.
epue for the beneft Of the "lnsans and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
10 belonged 70 that class OF lotteries that
arc made up Of peouniary prizes and min
lister 10 the love Of gain whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly 10 that sordid
passion, and 70 no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecunisry profit
aud enlist " Q corps Of active seducors 10
draw the weak aud unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise
msnts containing brilliant pictures OF the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
Il may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. - was argued BY respon.
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times 70 take the desperate chances
which lotteries afford, and that no In.
jurious 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.
sidsrsd - settled BY the adoption OF the
constitutional provision OK parts Darling,
recently decided.
In the Art Union case, 70 which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that II differed. In this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers we're 10 receive the lions share Of
the proaa. The Court, In answer 70 this
argument, said:
" II no lotteries had 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. Its misohisfs 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 neoessitous and
improviisnt Into its hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according TO
the views We may entertain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon the exeou.
ton 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 70 confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II u we're 70 DO I'D.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In its consequences, 10 would form no
ground for making IL BY Judicial con.
struction an exception 10 the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction, In
this respect, % TO the nature OF the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
in II. 1t IL their boundsn duty 70 declare
the law.
"The law knows no person IL 10 not
made for the individual man, but for men.
Al the dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
". Pierce, 8 New, 904.
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. IL
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 IL
authority IL incumbent upon all.
Third-It II unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY rsspon.
dsuts' council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend 10 violate tue law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 10
set 10 the premises under the articles OF
incorporation or under the provisions OF
the Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be without warrant Of
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court Il that the
respondents have no right. liberty. or
franchise, BY virtue Of any law. TO advsr.
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State.
or 10 do any Of the acts specified in the
statute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March Q. 1881
tStst., 1881, l6o |; and that the costs OF
this proceeding BE- taxed against them.
HAwLEY, J.
We concur; LEONARD, O. ].
BxLxSAP. ].
NOTHING SHORT OF