Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-02

cases In the United States to sustain tho
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 the Courts Of
other States, where tho constitutional
provisions arc substantially tho same as
our own.
II 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. 1t
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose Of raising rov.
mi for tho benefit Of the "Insane and
Charitable Fund" OF this State, or whether
II belonged to thatclass Of lotteries that
are made up Of pecuniary prizes and min
lister to tho love Of gain ; whose schemes
address themselves In tho grossest and
most revolving form directly to that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
the managers receive . ~pecuniary profit
and enlist "a corps Of active seducers 10
draw the weak and unwary into the pur.
chase Of tickets" by extensive advertise.
ments containing brilliant pictures Of the
favorable chances to acquire sudden
wealth.
It may DO admitted for the purposes Of
this decision. % wal argued by respon.
dents counsel, that the people Of this State
are essentially o gambling people, ready
at 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 q that must DO con.
sidered as settled by the adoption Of tho
constitutional provision ex parts Darling,
recently decided
frequently referred, 10 was claimed that
the enterprise was really Of . meritorious
character, and that II 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 Is Is contained In the Art Union
scheme, II Is not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
30 apparent as II its prizes were to be paid
In money, or as II would be 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 tho scheme. Tho 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 10 entirely harm
less In Its consequences, IL would form no
ground for making IL by judicial con.
absolute constitutional prohibition"
1.-THE law knows no person II 10 no
made for tho individual man, but for men.
As tho dew Of heaven falls, 30 II bears
alike upon tho just and unjust" Estate
vs.. Pierce, 8 Nov, 30i.
1t smiles and frowns upon all alike. II
makes no distinctions. Submission 10 It's
authority Is incumbent upon all.
Third-It Is unnecessary to discuss any
Of tho 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 u 10
apparent that 1t would mako no difference
whether respondents base their right 10
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 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
the scheme or enterprise Of tho "Nsvads
Benevolent Association" within this State,
or to do any Of the acts specified In the
statute, ITO aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association" approved March O.. 1881
lStat., 1881. 1861; and that tho costs Of
this proceeding DO taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We concur LEONARD, O. j.
DELKNAP, j.