Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-10

cases In the United States TO 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.
cidod adversely TO them BY the Courts Of
other States, where the constitutional
provisions are substantially tho Same a.
our OWE.
AZ the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of the morality. or I'm.
morality Of this particular scheme. 1t
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose Of raising rev.
onuo for the benefit OF the "Insane and
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 ; whose schemes
address themselves In the grossest and
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
tho managers receive . pecuniary proht
and enlist 10 corps Of active seducers to
draw the weak and unwary into the pQr.
chase Of tickets" BY extensive advertise
NoAS souseAhih8 bkiiiiAat ptSseAss Sss~~
favorable chances 10 acquire sudden
wealth.
It may DO admitted for the purposes Of
this decision, ~ was argued BY respon-
dents' counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially Q 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 PEG.
pie would result II this game Of chance
was allowed to proceed.
This question 10 q that must DO con.
sidered ss 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 Wal claimed that
the enterprise was really Of Q meritorious
character, and that IL differed, In this 70.
spect, from the lotteries where the mana.
ayers were TO receive tho lions share Of
the profits. The Court, In answer TO this
argument, said:
"If NO lotteries had existed excepting
such a. IL contained In the Art Union
scheme, IL 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. It's mischisfs are certainly not
90 apparent a. II It's prizes were to be paid
In money, or - IL would be II framed for
the purpose Of enticing the necessitous and
improvident into is hazards. But this
case cannot be decided according to
the 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 VA Of
good or evil tendency, and certainly did
not intend to confer that power on the
judicial tribunals. II II we're 10 DO id.
mitted that the scheme IL entirely harm.
less In Its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making 1t BY judicial con.
struction an exception 10 the general and
absolute constitutional prohibition"
"The law knows no person IL 10 no
made for tho individual man. but for men.
As the dew Of heaven falls. 20 Il bears
alike upon the just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce, 8 New, 304.l
It smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission to it,
authority Is incumbent upon all.
Third-It Is unnecessary to discuss any
OF the other points suggested by respon.
dents council.
We will not presume. In advance, that
respondents intend to violste the law.
From tho views already expressed II 10
apparent that IL would make no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under tho provisions Of
the Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would DO without warrant Of