The New York herald., 1874-05-22
THE COURTS.
Theatre Licenses---M Managers Contesting
the COnstitutionality of the Law.
TIE POLICE KIDNAPPING CASE.
Close of Argument-Deci-
sion Reserved.
BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.
THEATRE LICENSES.

The Constitutionality OF tho Act Imp0s-
ing Payment OF Licenses-Both Sides OF
tho Question as Presented by Opposing
Counsel.
Some two weeks ago q preliminary Injunction
was obtained in the Supreme Court against the So
ciety for the Reformation OF Juvenile Delinquents
and the Mayor and Corporation OF the CITY, restrain
ing them from endeavoring to collect the licenses
required by Legislative enactment passed in 1872
to be paid by theatres and other places
OF public amusement in the city, or from
enforcing the penalties prescribed in such act
until the matter had been adjudicated by the
Court. In connection with this Injunction there
was issued an order TO show cause why the same
should not be made permanent There was to
have been an argument on this order last Mon
day, but it was postponed till yesterday, whom,
rather unusual circumstance in these days OF the
laws delays, the argument was promptly had with
out Iurtner adjournment The payment or the
licenses In question is no very light burden, all
tDeatl es under the enactment referred to having
had to pay $500 for a period over three months
than three months, while clrcuses and concert
halls arc required 10 pay at the same rate for the
longer period and . $40 for the lesser me argu,
Court, Chambers. Although all the theatrical
managers are acting IN concert IN the matter, 1t
was arranged TO make the case of MIR. Lester Wal
lack the test case, the final decision In tnls to
ern ali the other cases. There being no dispute as
to the facts the whole matter resolves itself
therefore, was, in the main. notwithstand-
opposing counsel--Mr. A. Oakley Hall representing
the theatrical manager, and Mr.. William NJ. EvartS
appearng, against him-ot that dry aud, to the
general reader unnterestng nature characteriz-
ing such strictly legal disputations.
Mr.. Han made the opening argument. He in
sisted, first, tar the provisional remedy asked for
is appropriate; and. second, that the statute OF
1872, enforcing the payment of theatrical licenses
and penalties, Is void and unconstitutional. On
this latter point he argued that the law Is void be-
cause It authorizes suostaDtial tax Tor objects
He insisted, in addition, that the courts have
everywhere agreed that taxes can be lawfully i'm
posed or pubic purposes only and, under such
rnngs the business Ot a theatre being essentially
private he claimed the law to be unconstitutional.
AS to the society Tor the Reformation OF Juvenile
Dclinqucnts, he contended that 1t was private
Chal ity IN all respects OF control management and
disbursement and therefore not entitled to receive
such licenses.
Mr.. Evarts in response urged that the right to
tax depends upon the ultimate use for the iund,
aud not on the character ol the person or corpo-
tax Tor private purposes would be uncOnstitu-
Iional though passing through pubic officers
TO the decisions he referred to tChief Justice
Blacker and othersl, as the articles from news
learned opponents BRIEF II the society asked for
an injunction against Wallacks, and the law was
M ne Court could orCs not grant IT,
and yet they talked OF the necessity of an njunc-
ton, while havlrs. valid legal defence. They
commence suit for recovery next day AS for the
500 day fine. that was the security Tor the
lorcement OF the act and courts Will not hesitate
to enforce inconvenient penalties.
Afr. Hall said the state mad no control over the
institution which discharged or received inmates
at pleasure, nor over its funds, though the State
30ntrlouted support.
"But lawyers were licensed and taxed during
the war; said Mr.. Eyarts in the course OF his argu
ment.
'Yes. for the support OF the government an
swered Mr.. Hall; s'but how would the Bar have
liked to have had the license fee turned over. by
act OF Congress to society for the suppression or
lying and lalse swearing?'
Mr.. Lvarts, in his argument, also intimated that
the question argued was vexaious and only super
ncalIy tenabe. Mr.. Hall, in answering, quietly re-
marked 1t was singular II 1t was 20, that the Law
Committee OF the House oi Refuge should have
deemed the question important enough to employ
against 1t the jufst OF the Geneva Conference and
an ex-Attorney OF the United States.
Judge Dononue took the papers at the close OF
the argument reservlng his decision.