Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-18

cases In the United States 70 sustain the
position commended 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 tho Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially tho same -
our own.
II is proper to add that We have arrived
Al the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of tho 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.
enuo for the benefit OF the "lnsane and
Charitable Fund" Of this State. or whether
II belonged to that class OF lotteries that
arc made up Of pecuniary prizes and min
lister to tho love Of gain /; whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest y
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion. and to no other sentiment |; where
the managers receive . pecuniary proht
and enlist "a 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 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
1t may be admitted for tho purposes Of
this decision. as was argued by respon-
dents counsel. that the people Of this State
are essentially . gambling people, ready
ct all times to take the desperate chances
which lotteries afford, and that no In.
furious effects upon tho morals Of the PEG.
pie would result II this game Of chance
was allowed to proceed.
This question 10 one that must DO con.
sidered as settled by the adoption OF the
constitutional provision OK parts Darling,
recently decided
In tho Art Union case. to which We have
frequently referred, 10 was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that Il differed, In. this 70.
spect, from tho lotteries where tho mani.
ayers were 10 receive the lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer to this
argument, said:
"If no lotteries had existed excepting
such as Is contained In the Art Union
scheme. II Is not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. Its mischiefs are certainly not
80 apparent as II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or a. IL would DO II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improvident. into Its hazards. But this
case cannot DO decided according to
tho views We may entertain OF the probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
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 to confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II II were to DO id.
mitted that the scheme Is entirely harm.
less In It's consequences, IL would form NO
ground for making IL by judicial con.
struction IN exception TO the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
"The law knows no person ; II 10 no
made for tho individual man. but for men.
As tho dew Of heaven falls, 20 IL bears
alike upon the just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce. 8 New, 304.l
1t smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
authority 10 incumbent upon al.
Third-It Is unnecessary 70 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 the views already expressed II 10
apparent that IL would mako no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under tho articles Of
incorporation or under tho provisions Of
the-Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of
Law.
The judgment Of this Court Is 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 "Nevads
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any OF tho acts specified In the
statute. ITO aid tho Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March 0. 1881
lStat., 1881. 1861; and that the costs Of
this proceeding bo taxed against them.
HAwLEY, J.
We concur LEONARD, @. ].
RHIRNlp. T.