New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-04-21
MIR. OAKEY HALL ON THE LIQUOR LAW.

II The Editor Of TIE ~ y. Trsbxne
SIR: The following is subnitted in opposition to
the views Of Disuict-Attorney Hall;
Taking 1t for graz ted that the ictAttorney is
right in saying that, Until The recent act the Stat.
"uies of 1924, 1925 and 1888, provided excise regu-
"la'ions and penalties" what is the effect of much
Of tire recent act prohibits any of the licenses con-
tempated by hose acts from being hereafter anted
Section first of the law of 1924 authorizes ard
of Excse TO grant licenses to such persOIs - they
"sbsl deem &c and proper to retail hquor, or 10
keep an inn or tavern public ordirary, or victualhg
h9 4ss , .,,u Of aid 40, ,rovid.. .s.. every
person who shall sell by retail, &c., without being IL
cepstd shall, in addition to the penalties for such
"oHeDse prescribed In, and by any act OF tbs Legis-
"lature or by the Chsrter of the City OF New. York,
be &C nsidered guilty of misdemeanor, and sha,l
abe punished by fine and Imprisonment, or either, a.
"the discretion of the Court having cognzance oil
" the OnsDee."
By The 4fh section Of the act it is msde I'M
lawful for any perton in the City ITO sell any strong
" or spirtuous liquors absve five gallons without
being licensed as Pror'dea or III the hrst secton oi
above act under ire penalty of s25 for every oneose
This section e. ceps ,es made by importers or dstu
lers Of liquors mpor,ed or distilled by. them.
II will be observed that the Con nissionsrs are tn
determine the fitness propfiefy OF granting eacn
apple son and the seventh section OF the same act
REQUIRES the applicant to be Of good character
The act of 1925 only changes the Board OF Excuse,
and reprovides that selling by retail without license
The law of 1893, sec. 90, authorizes the Common
Council TO "pass such ordinances as they may dee
Unnecessary for the regulating and licensing oil keep
"ers Of ordinares or victuallng houses or wnere
fruits. Oysters, CLANS liquors or meats shall be
"sold." &c.
Section 25 of the recent act prohibits the granting
"heresfter of aoy Of the licenses contemplated by
the above act. ,,.,
Does that provision repeal the provisions prohibit
ing II @ sale without license
The District Attorney says:
ait ia the nece ssi'y for the license, coupled win
The ability, one chooses, 10 ootdiH "eeHss winch cie
ated the excise offenses"
In LUX VS. Hsstiogs, 1 Hill 655, the Supreme
Court of this State decided, under the State Exclse
Law, that Board of Exoise In grating or refusing
hoense under power granted in the same substantial
terms as in the above first section had discretion 10
exercise that could not be coerced and "a been e
peaeoly held that such Boaro LII granting or refusing
icensfs acts juoically. $780, .
IL follows that there never any legal liability
70 obtain license. Does il follow, If ali houses were
refused prior TO the act that the sale OF hquor
would thereby become free
The new act takes away this discreton, and
says no licenses shall be granted.
The provisions prohibiting sale without license
under heavy penalties, are expressly repealed, at
least until July 4.
Are thew repealed by implication
This question has al,o been sojudic ,ted. 4.
By the act Of ls45 1t will be remembered thS the
Question whether not licences should be granted 10
fSis state, out OF rew-York City, was submitted to
The 10 ope and By the 9Th section of that act, when
ay.r lie electors of any town determined that no
Gcerses should be granted II wss provided that any
nsrson who SOLD srould be liable TO the old penalty
A rerson was indicted for selling where mo IL
"cebss had been voted and the act OF ls4o was
repealed dure & the tendency of the prosecution.
II the provisions Of the Revised ststutes IN una
case were superseded by the act OF leo tue reeai o
the latter act aba ed the prosecution -,
Hwss hsld by he Court People va. TowDsey, DIN
Hin ;3 tbst The penalties ia the Revised statutes
were not repealed and, in considering that question:
che Court cay: ,... 4,
"If majority Of the electors vote for no LICENSE
Al. afscrftcsarS Dorer which the Revised SfssuIes
rave 10 the Boards of Excise is wholly taken away,
and they are prohibited from granting any hcehse
m m, oct had stoned here the consequence wouio
have been that so much Of Title as gives power TO-
or authorizes the Boards Of Excise to grant licenses
would have been repesled or suspended q4oda sucn
Town. The Boarcs OF Excise could not have granted
any license ard all the provisions for the resasno1
of grocen and tsvTns, after being licensed, wou'd
have been simply inapplicsble and useless.
The provisions OF title nipe prohibiting the sac OF
liquors and all the consequences Of violating taose
proyisiors would have remained " vital and unJ-
"feced" In other words II the act Of lsi3 had NOS
provided any penalties or that the old penalties
should remsin In force but had simply prohibited any
nnless vote Of the electors Of the town were first
naa-aDd such vote had everywhere resulted " no
made fsee."
The act Of isi5 had prohibited any licenses from
being thereafter granted II would have repe sled those
provisions only which relate to taverns and groceries
G hcsIses and the penalties for selling would re-
by the Revised Statutes ss well O. by those sp-