Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-05-20

revenue, they would net have used ths
language they did In the concluding ssn.
tenos, !" Nor shsll the sale Of lottsry tick
es b allowed" These words clearly
show that u was not intended that any
lottsry should be authorized By this 6tats
The words " by this stats," ~ used In
our Constitution. and The words " In thil
State" cor within this etats," - used
In the Constitutions Of New York. hsvs
virtually the same meaning.
"No lottery shall b authorized BY THU
State, NOR shall the sale Of lotssry tickstl
bs allowed" '
This language applies 70 al lotteries,
whsthsr public or private. To lotteries
conducted BY the State By the church
By private individuals (; BY benevolent and
charitable assoeiations, and by corpora
lions.
No lottsry Of any kind can bs suthor.
ised By the tsgislatars under the present
Cousdtution. . . .
We again repeat what, u seems 70 n,
must BE- evident 10 svsry unbiased and i'm
partial mind. that the language Of the
oonstituhonal provision. II too plain fol
argument. That under IL the Lsgislaturs
cannot authorize any lottery in this State,
and that the Aot approved March ., 1881,
10 null and void.
We are conscious Of the fact that II VA
unnecessary 70 add anything TO the reason.
ing Of this Court In 90 parts Blanchard.
which 10, Of itsslf. 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 10 found In any Of the sdjudicsted
cases In the United States to sustain the
position contended for by respondents
aud that no argument has been advanced
BY respondents, upon either OF these
points, that has not hsretofors been do.
oidsd adversely TO them By the Courts ol
other States, where the constitutional
provisions arc substantially the Same ~
our own.
Il is proper 10 add that We have arrived
at the conslusion stated without consider.
Ing the question Of the morality, or i'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. II
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose Of raising rev.
snus for the benefit OF the "Insans and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
Il belonged 70 that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary 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 10 no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecunisry prodt
and enlist 80 corps Of active seducers To
draw the weak and unwsry into the pur.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise.
msnts containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
II may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision, ~ was argued By respon-
dents counsel, that the people OF this Stats
are essentially . gambling people, ready
st all times 10 take the desperate chances
which lotteries afford, and that no In.
jurieus effects upon the morals Of the peo.
ple would result II this game Of chance
was allowed TO proceed.
This question 10 one that must be con.
sidsred a. settled BY the adoption OF the
constitutional provision q parte 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 Il differed, In this 70.
spsct, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were 70 receive the lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer 10 this
argument, said:
II no lotteries had existed excepting
such a. 10 contained In the Art Union
scheme, Il IL not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or BY law. Ita misohiefs are certainly not
20 apparent a. II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or as 10 would be II framed for
the purpose Of entieing the neoessitous and
improvident 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 exsoh-
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 To confer that power on the
Judicial tribunals. II Il were TO DO ad.
mitted that the scheme is entirely HARM
less In its consequence, IL would form no
ground for making II 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 IL. II 10 their bounden duty 70 declare
the law.
"The law knows no person (; Il 10 not
made for the individual man, but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls, 90 IL bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" State
". Pierce. 8 New, SoA. -
II smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission 70 IT.
authority ID incumbent upon all.
Third-It IL Unnecessary 10 discuss any
Of the other points suggested BY respon'
dsnts' council.
We will not presume, In advance. that
respondents intend TO violate the law.
From the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that u would mako no difference
whether respondents base their right 70
set 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 have no right. liberty. OF
franchise, BY virtue Of any law, 70 sdver'
tise, print, circulate or sell any tickets in
the scheme or enterprise Of tho /" Nevada
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or 10 do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, "to aid the Nevada Benevolenl
Association" approved March o. 1881
tStat.. 1881, i66Ij and that the costs oi
this proceeding bs taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LroSARp, O.. ].
BELKNAP, j.
NOTHING SHORT OF