Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-03

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
cided adversely to them BY the Courts Of
other States, where tho constitutional
provisions arc substantially tho same as
U own.
Il is proper To add that We have arrived
at the conclusion stated without consider
ing the question Of tho morality. or i'm
morality Of this particular scheme. It
makes no difference whether II was set on
foot purely for the purpose Of raising ros.
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 and
most revolving form directly TO that sordid
passion, and to no other sentiment; where
tho managers receive . pecuniary profit
and enlist - corps OF active seducers TO
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 be admitted for the purposes OF
this decision. as was argued by respon.
dents counsel, that the people OF this State
arc essentially . gambling people, ready
at all times TO take tho 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 o that must DO con-.
sidered as settled BY the adoption Of the
constitutional provision ex parte Darling.
recently decided.
In tho Art Union case, TO which We have
frequently referred, IL was claimed that
the enterprise was really OF Q meritorious
character, and that 1t differed, Ia 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 as IL contained In the Art Union
scheme, II 10 not probable that they would
have been forbidden by the Constitution
or by law. It's mischiefs are certainly not
80 apparent as II Its prizes were to be paid
In money, or s 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
the views We may entertain Of the probable
good or evil consequent upon the execu.
ton Of the scheme. The Constitution
took away tho 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 we're to DO id.
mitted that the scheme 10 entirely harm
less In its consequences, II would form NO
ground for making 1t BY judicial con.
struction an exception to 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 1t bears
alike upon tho just and unjust" Estate
W.. Pierce, 8 New, 3Oi.
1t smiles and frowns upon all alike. 1t
makes no distinctions. Submission to its
authority 10 incumbent upon all.
Third-It 10 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 the views already expressed IL 10
apparent that 1t would make no difference
whether respondents base their right to
act In the premises under the articles Of
incorporation or under the provisions Of
the Act Of the Legislature. In either event
their Acts would be 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. 1851; and that the costs Of
this proceeding DO taxed against them.
HAwLEY, ].
We concur: LEONARD, @. ].
BELKNAP, j.