Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-13

c,ses In the United States 10 sustain the
nosition commanded for BY respondents ;
and that no argument has been advanced
by respondents, upon either OF these
noints. that has not heretofore been do.
cided adversely TO them By the Courts Of
other States, where tho constitutional
nrovisions are substantially the same a.
our own. .,
Al Inc Conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of tho morality, or I'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. ~
makes no difference whether u was SCI IN
foot purely for the purpose OF raising rev,
euue for tho benefit Of the "Insane ana
Charitable Fund" Of this State, or whether
Il belonged TO that class Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary prizes and min
lister to the love OF gain I; whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest md
most revolving form directly TO that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . pecunisry prons
and enlist 90 corps OF active seduoers 70
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise.
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
II may be admitted for the purposes Of
this decision, - wa argued BY respon.
dents' counsel, that the people Of this stats
are essentially . 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 peo.
pie would result II this game Of chance
was allowed TO proceed.
This question 10 q that must DO con.
sidered a settled by the adoption Of the
constitutional provision lex psrte Darling,
recently decided.l
In the Art Union case, TO which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of Q meritorious
character, and that II differed, In this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers 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, II IL not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
30 apparent a II Its prizes were to DO paid
In money, or % u would be II framed for
the purpose Of entlcing the necessitous and
improvident into it, hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according to
tho views We may entertain Of tho probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
ton Of che 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 II wsro 70 DO ad-
mitted that the scheme is entirely harm.
less In its consequences, IL would form NO
ground for making IL by judicial con.
struction m exception 10 the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
"The law knows no person ; II 10 no
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As the dow OF heaven falls, 20 II bears
alike upon the Just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce, 8 New, 304.l
II smiles and frowns upon oil alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission to it,
authority Is incumbent upon all.
Third-lt IL unnecessary TO discuss any
Of the other points suggested by respon-
dents council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend to violate the law.
From tho views already expressed II 10
apparent that II would mako nc difference
whether respondents base their right TO
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
tho Act OF the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO 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
tho 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 o. 1881
Stat. 1881. 1861; and that the costs OF
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BELYNAP, ],