Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-07-12

language they did In the concluding sen.
tencs, "Nor shall the sale OF lottery tick.
ets be allowed" These words clearly
show that It was not intended that any
lottery should be authorized BY this State
for any purpose.
The words "by this State" - used In
our Consultation. and the words "in this
State" "or within this State" - used
In the Consultations Of New York, have
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b authorised BY this
shts, nor shall the sale OF lottery tickets
be allowed"
This language applies To oil lotteries,
whether public or private. 10 lotteries
conducted BY the State by the church ;
By private individuals; BY benevolent and
charitable associations, and By corpora
lions.
No lottery Of any kind can bs author-
lied BY the Legislature under the present
Constitution. . . = y
We again repeat what, Il seems 10 us.
must be evident 10 every unbissed and In.
partial mind. that the language Of the
cons stitut tionL provision 10 too plain for
argument. That under II the Legislature
cannot authorize any lottery IN this State,
and that the Act approved March ., 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that II was
unnecessary 10 add anything TO the reason.
Ing OF this Court 10 &C ports Blanchard.
which 10. Of itself. absolutely conclusive
upon both Of the points We have discussed.
But IL has been attempted. BY . desire
upon our part. 10 show that no authority
could 30 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 heretofore been do.
cided adversely TO them by tho 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 the morality. or i'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. II
makes no difference whether IL was set on
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev.
enue for the benefit Of the "lnsans and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
IL belonged 70 that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pscuniary prizes and min
lister 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 proat
and enlist 80 corps Of active seducers TO
draw the weak aud 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. - was argusd BY respon.
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times 70 taks the desperate chances
which lotteries Afford, and that no In.
furious effects upon the morals Of the peo.
was allowed 10 proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidered a. settled by the 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 . meritorious
character. and that II differed. in this 70.
spect, from tho lotteries where the mana.
ayers were TO receive the lions share OF
the proats. The Court, In answer 70 this
argument. said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such - 10 contained In the Art Cuion
scheme. IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden BY the Constitution
or by law. In misohisfs are certainly not
90 apparent a. II its prises were to be paid
In money, or - 10 would be II framed for
the purpose Of snticing the nscessitous and
improviisnt into Its hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according 10
the visws We may entertain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon the sxecu.
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 70 confer that power on the
Judicial tribunals. II IL were 70 DO I'D.
mittsd that the scheme 10 entirely harm.
less In its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making IL BY Judicial con.
struetion an exception 10 the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
Courts cannot make any distinction. In
this respect, 40 TO the nature OF the trans.
action or the character Of persons engaged
In Il. 1t II their bounden duty 70 declare
the law.
"The law knows no person u 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
W, Pierce, 8 New, 604.l
II smilss and frowns upon oil alike. IL
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 Its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 unnecessary 70 discuss any
Of ths other points suggested By rsspon'
dsnts' council.
We will not presume. In advance. that
respondents intend TO violate the law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right 10
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 bs without warrant Of
Law.
The Judgment Of this Court 10 that the
respondents hAvs NO right. liberty, or
BY virtue Of any law. TO advsr-
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets In
the scheme or enterprise Of the "Nevads
Benevolent Association" within this Stats.
or TO do any Of the acts specified In the
statute. "to aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March Q. 1881
tstat., 1881. 1851; and that the costs OF
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLEY, J.
We concur: LxoSARD, O. ].
BELxNAP. ].
THE SUN FOR 1881.
= a., ,h. wo,ld,. r.vs an nrsssuted that the