The New York herald., 1869-12-01
SUPREME CGbhT-SpfciaL TEAM.
Important Decision Relating to fhe Metropolis
tan Excise Funds.
by Judge CardOZo,


The People, de-, rel. The Commissioners oJte
sfdhtng Fund Of the City Of Ne,o YORK Us. The
Metropolitan Excise Board ana b. y. Mdn,eJyp.
Treasurer, 6c.-The House or the Good Shepherd u.s.
The S1nee.--The Juoenae Guardian Society rs. The
.Sdn.e.Tie Sisters or CHARITY or 81. Vancent de PAU
rs. The SaDle.-The Association Jor the BENEFIT or
Co,ored Orphans rs. The San,e.--The Ne,o York
State Haeo1tdte Asylum Us. The Sdme.-An
these cases came before the Court on motions
to show cause why mandamus should not
be granted against the Treasurer OF the Excise
Board, To pay 70 the Sinking Fund the whole amount
OF s2lA, l6s then IN his hands received for tavern
anu excise" licenses. The counsel for the Sinking
Fund claimed that long before the act of the
Sinking Fund was entitled to all the moneys
arising from licenses as security to the
ABOVE named claimed under subseunent acis and
especially under the last tax levy. The case was
argued at considerable length before Judge Cardozo
some ,ae ago Inat judge has now delivered the
Assuming. as must be done since the decisions
the Metropolitan Police % district M A'tf LAWS s"'a of
1884, chap. 5oe, p. 200 People vs. Draper.
Is \. y. p. 5s2l and to regulate tho sale OF
OF 1865, chap 5ss p. PAP. Met. Ex. Bovine w. Bar-
RE, 81 n Y, p; 59Il are constitutional. think 1t
clear that tho Commissioners of the Sinking Fund
have title to interest the fees received BY the
Excise Board Tor licenses issued pursuant to the act
OF 1866 and therefore cannot be heard TO oppose the
motions which the other REALTORS make; and there
fore as except by the sinking Fund Commits
soners, no opposition is maze TO those ap-
paca5ons, they must be granted; The
mlssoners claim the license fees IL that bY ordl-
nance ratiied by act Of the Legislature May I3,
lss5, the city pledged Tor the payment OF interest
certain OF It's stocks all moneys thereafter To be
celyed by i, among other things. .for tavern and
excise llcensesn and lG claimed that by several
acts of the Legislature all revenues IN the city Of New
YORK Iloin that and other sources have also been
pledged to the payment OF bonds stil outstanding and
ths interest thereon. think IL unnecessary to follow
counse over the elaborate points and argument pre-
hened III ~ SUFFICIENT to that the license fees
pledged are not those issuing from licenses which the
Metropolitan Excise Board are authorized to grant
Wlthlu tue Metropolitan district. IL ~ only the
''tayern ana exclsep lees realized from licenses
issued py the Guy, that are pledged, aud as the
city no longer issues any It derives no revenue
from that source. The fees which the Board collect
not 1or nccnses 10 sell liquor IN the city OF New
YORK az such but for licenses to sell nc desg-
mated place within new territorial district which IL
has been held the Legislature might create sec 4,
laws Of 1850, chap 58l Those fees, therefore, are
not the ones which were pledged. THIS disposes OF
the matter. should say, however, that the question
presented here u very different from that
which arose In the People vs. Acton t4s Barb,
to bestow upon the Board or Metropolitan Police The
powers and duties which heretofore, by laws and
ordinances, had been conferred upon the city
authorizes In regard 10 city licenses, aud to axe
that power exclusive OF the city government. No
new district was created, with the right to
issue certain licenses within 1t, but II was
the city authorities, within the city limits, as
SUCH to the board OF Police That, OF course, was
held unconstitutional. But that Ii the question:
here. vcnturing, very respeosuly TO entertain de-
Metropolitan Poce and the Excise law were held
constitutional, were clearly erroneous, and can with
little enor 10 demonstrated 10 be so, but Yielding OF
course, implicit obedience TO them. have only 10
add that consequence. not TO be deplored,
resulting from those cases, s The CONCLUSION