New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-06-16
LrQUoR.DEALEBs AND TIE ExCasH
LAW.

CONTINUATION OF TIE ARGUMEyT-THE RUa-sEL-
LBRs AyxIoUs-JUDGE RESERVES HIS DECISION.
The case Of Holt act. Schultz and Others was re-
suned yesterday morning Graham replied to the argu
ment Of Mr. Tracy behalf Of the law. He complained that
the sunday question: which had nothing to do with this case
had been dragged In by the action of Paul Fak He lad hin
self devoted four days and half the careful examination Of
this matter not advocate and his conclusions were
strengthened since He claimed that all facts except the
dures admitted. lie reviewed the cases cited by the
opposite counsel and claimed that they 20
answer to hs points He argued that there real duress
by the Board that the question whether the Board and
the plaintiff stood the plane 1.-The had stood
e9 tes no Tgnt Obtained against him could be enforced
Heccd case from the NcwHampshire Reports in direct
opposition that cited by Mr. Tracy the former being
civil while the latter criminal case. The right 70
sell after miang, was properly IN ise Tor which valuable
bought with view to that right aud the act OF preventing
such sale destroying the plaintiffs property and under
Myrehamer the doing void and unconsu
fionai' II was true the law of leJ7 contained the
power Of revocation but that revocation merely In
plate such repeating OF licenses as that in question
This ordinary proceeding and be wished the public to
know that they using extraordinary means to hwart
this law but merely the ordinary course Of Justice
Brooklyn this act is unconstitutional AN author
lied 20 issue injunction in this case
Ar Graham continued e argue tnat an lluaeloa was
proper where there might be rTeparabe 0fy threatened
He claimed that after all that had been said conceded
tie law unconstitutional Il least against the palnt
against all all their ingenuity had been exhausted
in support Of the law their arguments had amounted ~ iao
to nothing. He did not mean TO dlspaiage tne aply OF
ingenuity or tho opposite COnnfe Dut
men amount TOT TO nothing In matters relating to the
Constitution the Court Of Appeals must be held decisive
On the matters relating the United States Constitution the
tribunal which ruled al questions arising under il was the
Supreme Court Of the United States He wanted no New
ENGLAND law He willing cOncede their claims 20 lgh
morality aud purity; might be they all ustted bur
IL could be denied that anatcsm prevailed there ana the
States there had interred with many things which were not
properly the object OF legislation For his part he was sue
lover Of Liberty that be preferred her even when approaching
license 10 cOnstraint and slavery. -,
Mr. Tracy asked leave reply to few now points which
lad been raised by Mr. Graham in his reply The points raised
that plaintiff had cOntrac. with the State anu ba
no had given It up under duTess Now the allegations OF
irreparabe injury the complaint fay met and denied
the ad4ys Of the defendants They therefore out
~ the case The plaintiff had therefore standing IN the
Court not to be thought Of that any person might
bring to have the law declared unconstitutional WBether
he not injured by Il. He must show case en-
utling him to the protection Of the Court.
As the dures anything shown making out case OF
durcss There c0mpusOn whatever shown NO ask
The money be paid back and the license annued N
agreed that the license good thing and was eagerly
sought Suppose case here before the Court and
jury be should have fear u his HonoFs charge on tlat
point
Mr. Graham-suppOse We take these gentlemen Qhe au'
dionce) for jury
Hr Tracy-I have summoned the friends Of the law
here enemies have by the press Ibave not required
acsmon. The question Of license being contract fur
Their argued by Mr.. Tracy
Judge Cardozo-I wish call your attention TO the
against Second Third Avenue Railroad Company de-
Gliding that the license fees prescribed by the city could not be
increased.
Mr. Tracy-Those cases have been much shaken that
have not thought while 10 discuss them before you
Mr. Graham answered In q few words after which the
Court took the papers, reserying its decision