Smyrna times., 1855-05-09
LIQUOR SELLING Inv NEW YORK.

LIQUOR SELLING I'M NEW YORK.
1t has been supposed that al licenses to sell
liquor in this city, says the Neo York Tribune,
expired on the first day of the month. This
is an error They uniformly read, till the first
Monday in May--being the 1th inst, In Brook
lyn, the licenses run day longer. aud extend
to Tuesday. In the latter place, the Mayor
intends, as we believe to execute the Prohib- 7
tory Law. In New York city, Mayor Wood /
has already announced his determination to hold !
the opinion of the District Attorney as an au-
thoritiye exposition of the statute, SO far as it
bears on the period between next Monday and
the Fourth of July, and after. that time to be
governed BY the opinion of the Counsel to the
Corporation. To be sure, the agreement of the
latter Of the official with the former, as to the
effect of prohibiting new licenses, is not SO de-
cided as it might be but the position of both
gives them weight, in spite of any seeming
discrepancy between them; F.; and SO, for the pre-
sent, their word is law.
The opinion of the District-Attorney is SIM
ply that as no licenses can be granted after the
lst inst, all penalties for selling are as con-
sequence, abolished. 1t is not supposed that
the Legislature, in passing the law, intended
thus to remove all restrictions on the trade
during these two months. Their intention was
to restrict and put it down, not to give it freer
scope. The argument, then, set up Mr.. Hall,
is that they so framed the bill as to enact pre-
cisely the contrary of what they designed
/ Meaning TO restrain and suppress the traffic,
the law interentially gives it greater freedom
than ever. No licenses are to be given but
there is no punishment for those who sell with
out. MIR. Dillon, on the other hand, contends
that by another inference, imported liquors ma V
be freely sold by the bottle or by the glass, not
: only by the merchant bringing them into the
country, but by the retailer who buys them at
third and fourth hands.
BY the Excise Act of 1901 no person could
d sell, without such license as prescribed in that
: act, under penalty of S25 tor each offence. -
The kind OF license and the persons to be
licensed were fully set forth. The act o
: 1924, so far from repeating the penal section
U of 1901, expressly provided FIR is specific en-.
# i@.cement, and, in addition thereto, the act Q
l. lS24 dGGiured solling by retail without Ii
- cense, mlsdemeanOr. The act of 1925 roe.
a step further, and declares that the person
g selling, on delivering in pursuance of sale, o
h, permitting liquors thus sold to be drunk on thu
ID premises, without license, is liable for mis-
demeanOr, and also to all the penalties of tin
\ act of 1924, that rs, the penalty of SD. Tn
IL act of 1927, so far from repeating the forme
he prohibitions and penalties, re-affirmed them
Or declaring again that every sale by retail, to b
to drunk in the house of the seller, without be
m ing licensed according to law" should subiec
the offender to $25 penalty. Such are the vi
;! repealed Excise Laws applicable TO the city G
ne New York. No ordinance Of the Commo
4 III
and none has attempted it. And now let u
i, ask, since the first act was passed in 1901, VIII
has been permitted to sell Clearly such pei
~ sons had the license. And who has bee
e. prohibited from selliug The answer is plain
Every man who could not show statut
license.
- In the statutes we have quoted, the Iegisls
" ture prescribed the form aud dictated the sui
80 stance Of these Licenses declared who migl
have them, and on what terms, and who shouI
not-limitIng and qualifying, from time to tim
OF the licenses to be granted The right to do tn
mt was never questioned, nor was it ever dispute
Is up to April, 1855, that any man selling wiihol
license incurred the penalty Of the statute
ss Indeed, Mr.. Dillon, the Corporation Counse
ms and Mr., Haskins, the Corporation Attorney
a written opinion of the 18th February, 1855
% expressly informed the Common Council thi
'r- without being licensed" would subject the q
er fender to the penalty. And what is little r.
lat markable, Counse lor Dillon did not then thin
IRE proper TO except imported liquor.
IN In April, 1855, the Legislature still furth,
re- limited the granting of licenses, and declare
lat that after certain day no licenses whatcv
'g- should be granted. What folows7 VIII
es' that no one shall sell. If he do so before Il
Ter 4th of July, then all the penalties of the exis
IN ing statutes (for the section of the new law
IT, pealing these and substituting new ones dor
ne not take effect till the 4th of JULY will be vi
lid tied upon him. After that day, the new pena
u.s. ties will take the place of the old ones Is n
:, this clear! Will not every lawyer who h
all examined the statutes admit it! ..-t
ne The same reasoning by which Mr.. Hall iu
IN titles free liquor for two months in the cit
-he would make it eventually free in the countr
EAR The Revised Statutes, like the city acts decla
he that /" whoever shall sell by retail, or witho
IN having license, shall be liable to the S25 pc
re- atty, and be deemed guilty OF a misdemeanor
ne This is all the restriction there is for the cou
TO try, and it is of the same nature with that
yer the city. The license is what gives the rig
Tor to sell. When that is withheld, the right
nld gone, and the man who moves one step in d
icy retail traffic without this license had bett
IND take spending money with him.
md M