The New York herald., 1866-06-16

Continuatien Of the Argument Respect
ing It's sionality-Psstpone-
= ment or Paul Falk's Case Until This
Morning. &c., So.
COURT or COMMON PLEAs-CnANBERs.
Before Judge Cardozo.
Csrss w. HoN vs The Board Of Escsse. Tho chambers
OF the Court Of Common Pleas again crowded yes.
terday to the conclusion OF the argument respect
Ing the constuonality OF the new EXCISE law Inside
the iron rangs several extra chairs were placed for the
accommodation OF tho public while the outside space
Was allotted to those coming late and compelled for the
most part to occupy standing positions
Just before the resumption Of the argument In the
case Of Mr. Holt the counsel for Paul Fak moved for the
postponement OF the discussion in his clients case on
the ground that the legal points not ye printed,
and that the conclusion Of the other argument would not
be reached until late hour Of the day The counsel
for the Board Of Excse opposed this application, ana
be taken up at hall past ten O'Clock this morning.
The counsel for Mr. Holt then proceeded 20 reply to
the Of M Tsc o. g aS % %sy % 10
commenced by referring TO an order OF
Kennedy directing tho police TO enforce TO the last de-
Indecent in view or the fact that the validity Of tho
enactment was before a judicial tribunal The Court
would BE- UNDERSTOOD that the law should moi Be put in
force while this action pending. Tho counsel then
dws on the Of M Ti ana
admitted by the counsel FOR tho Board OF Excise with
two exceptions-frs that the Board Of Excise were
and second that Holt had been compelled to obtain
new license. All the rest was admitted, he under
Inc pon was that Mr. Holt had q his own
free yoon cancelled the license he had rcceived from
the old Board Of Excise, aud that Therefore he was
II that nything, Il simply meant that those who
had taken out licenses under the new law were bound
by Its provisions while those who had not done 50 were
unt In nj WOr
the law bound by IT, The answer to that was that
the Iegsaf derived its authority 10 make Laws from
the State constitution, and that the Legislature could
not enact law which depended for its validity upon the
choice of the people, except in certain well known cases.
mentioned Il was said thas Mr. MoI. had Voluntarily
accepted the law and renounccd bis old license oy tax
man with pistol at his head Highway robber who
had threatened to blow out mans baius il he did not
surrender his purse might come into court and set up
his life; he preferred to savc his ic and therefore
consented to g!vc up his money" II the 1st Of last
May Mr. Holt had presumed resist the law the thou
sand hounds under the control OF the Board OF Excise
would have been unkerneed and let loose upon him. He
would have dragged TO every police court ard CUB
jcctcd to gross indgnes Ho knew that his business
was in jeopardy, and els that i he made show Of
resisting the law at the outset he might have been
ruined rreparaby. Parties 10 contract should stand
equality, and II could not be held that Holt, when
cqual footing with the State. The Satc so TO speak,
had him under durcss, and he only yielded through
person. The State therefore had advantage him,
and in court of equity, where one party takes
an improper advantage, over another, the latter
rs regarded as not having been placed under
legal obligation. Moreover the State had gyen
no consideration for tin, surrender OF hnit's
license He had paid for his former license for certain
period, and before the expiration OF that time
claimed that ko had legally surrendered his license,
while there was no preence that had received back
tho money he raid into the treasury Of tho State
Again tho counsel FOR the defendants asserted that
license was net contract at ailthat was something
ta loAo q hQ nnA
caprice Of the STATE That position was entirely un
lcnabe and the counsel anayzed all the cases quoted
the present discussion In all those no consdera
ton had been paid for licenses, whereas in this
ps The aesSa Of tho statute was cossy that pe
cunary consd ration should be paid and the design
was what tho court should principally look at The
laure Tie Law did not slate ths. intended 70 cancel
former lie nses, and to say that il did and designed
TO receive consideration for licenses and aerward re-
woke them, sill ming the consideration would be
irnputo bad faith 10 the Legislature. The court should
stances TO zay that the Legislature designed TO commit
an act OF dishonesty when hal failed to state
pressy itself The coanse here referred to the tanscal
whilo this city the great commercial emporium Of the
country. bad lis dess OF morality lberaixed and
state regard 10 It's wishes seemed 10 he paid The
declaration that man was made sor self government
seemed 10 have application 10 this city In the eyes
Of the Albany sclons, and all lis privileges we're
transferred TO commissioners appointed by persons
LIVING IN Other Paris OF The Stiic II WAS mol nc.
cessary 10 form contract with the State that Il
should give something aneb'e, because IL WAS other
wise In The case Of bsnk charter There the
State gives license 10 carry ON the banking business
II docs not give house nor does II nay the clerks
employed In the business go II with license 70
so liquors. II was just much property banking
charter He conceded that the United States and the
State had right To reE ustc business in reasonable
way but neither had rghi destroy existing rights a.
in this Gaze Tie State colld abolish rraiic in liquor
altogether and might punish violation Of such law
with death Il might lie a. tyranncai as Il pleased
xtvtas nl llg aMc lint ron mat tnnrI
the past and could only deal with matters concerning
the future lie differed from his opponents in IN, belief
that prohibtry law could not bc passed Such a Law
could be CONSTITUTIONAL hut il could not operate
actively but prospectveg. Much bad bccn said ~ TO
tha, they were gevoLahIc by the terms Of The law
OF 1857 Itself IL Was only for misconduct, and
aud repeating The counsel wished the pablo to under
stand that he not asking the Court for anything that
he had not right 10 ask The grounds upon which The
injunction was sought We're perfectly legal and well
recognized An inunct on mist he granted either to
restrain rrcparabie injury or 10 suppress oppressive or in
terminablc litigation, 10 prevent multiplicity OF
suits II enough II injury threatened 10 be
done which wcud destroy property Tor the future The
counsel conccdcd with bret recapitulaiion Of his
principal points and sat down after over two hours
Nc Tracy replied behalf Of the Board Of Excise in
brief nen,, and was again followed by the counsel
FOR Mr Holt after which the papers given 10 the
Court, The decision Is expected at an early day.
Board or Excise.
NINE HUNDRED AND FfFrY THOUSAND poLLAys
RECEIvED FOR LICESsEs-fiouoR DEALERS Br-
FORE THE BOARD FoT VIOLATING THE EXCISE
LAW, ETC, Ere.
The Board OF Excise met yesterday afternoon, Prcs-
dent Schultz presiding. Mr.. Acrcs reported fsvorsbly
on one hundred and seventy licenses from the Com
miiicc on Licenses and also offered resolution autho
zing the money for licenses already
granted until the 10Th inst, with another resolution
extending the time for applications up 10 the ssms date
Both resolutions were adopted Nine hundred and nny
thousand dollars was stated the received for
licenses up TO four O'Clock yesterday afternoon
After the 10Th Inst applications will be received.
but licenses be granted at any time
On motion Of Judge BoswoRrH the mandamus issued
on application Of Nicholas Murray No 20 Murray street.
drccSg The board 10 make inquiries into his character
with Wow 10 his getting license was brought up.
Mr.. Murray did not put Ia an appearance but aaida,
vs were read from police officers proving that
he kept bad place, and that u was rendezvous for
young thieves and drunken women
The following persons were ordered 20 be summoned