The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-25
THE EXCISE WAR.
President Morton, of the Excise Board,
on the Situation.
ORIGIN OF PRESENT DIFFICULTIES
justice Duffy viii Take Blocker as a Wit
nesS-LateSt Developments.

Business was comparatively dull At the ofice OF the
Board OF Excise yesterday During The forenoon the
commissioners received VISIT from Mr.. Mlikcn and
Dir. j. d. Whitney, Of the Executive Committee OF the
Society for the Prevention Of Crime, both OF whom
spent some time IN examining the books OF the Board
for the purpose as is understood OF ascertanng the
names OF liquor dealers who dong business with
outa license. No meeting Was hold by the Commits
sonors and but few applications Tor licenses pro-
sented. In the afternoon a HERALD reporter waited
on President Morton, Of the Board OF Excise, when
the following conversation ensued:-
INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT MORTON.
"what has been the cause OF the present contro-
versy?" queried tho writer.
ut originates. said President Morton .in the in
depreciation placed upon portion OF the law passed
1857 aud that enacted In 1870 The OF 1857
ceeded the prohibi.ory law Of 1855, which
knowledgcd failure however great the desire might
have been to make operative. Tho provisions OF tho
law of 1857 were therefore liberal than those OF
that which preceded IT because It authorized the
granting OF licenses 10 the keepers OF inns,
and hotes-all OF which terms, II should be under
Stood are synonymous in law as established by dec
sions-also the granting another class Of licenses to
storokespors. These last prohibited the persons
licensed from selling liquor to be drunk the prem
Uses. while the others granted this privilege
"Woud you state what conditions imposed
under Inc law oil looIT"
"That law required In the granting OF licenses to
keepers Of hotels not only that applicants should be
persons of good moral character but also that they
should keep at least three spare beds, with necessary
bedding, &C., Tor the mmodation OF travellers
and in addition put up sign to that effect
within thirty days after such license mad been
granted Ii also required that tho Board OF Excise
should DO satisfied that the person applying Tor
hotel license proposed to conduct such business
Now the law OF 1870 expressly authorizes the Board
OF EXCISE TO grant licenses to ANY person good
moral character, who shall be approved by them.' 10
sell and dispose OF liquor without any restrictions
regard TO It's being drunk on the premises. Whatever
might hive been the intention OF this law ii
generally looked upon advancing on the policy
established by The act OF 1857 in tho moro liberal
matter OF granting licenses"
"Wlll you please state your meaning more ex-
plictlys"
"In the first place II was regarded as removing the
class restriction und establishing the equality of per-
sons To be liconscd who possessed = good moral
character and leaving discretion largely the Board
oil Excise In IT'S action. Whether this n mistaken
Interpretation OF tho law or not It doesn't
sary for ut this time TO discuss. IL il sufficient
that II was. believe, adopted by tho Boards OF
Excise IN all the cities, towns ana villages through.
gu. the state, ana acted under from
the time Of its enactment IN 1870, down to the time
OF the decision Of tho Court OF Appeals in March last
one OF the points the conflict OF that tho
act OF 1870 70 enacted such pcrtons OF the law OF 1857
were not unconscious or IN conflict with them. II
Is precisely TINS provision OF the enactment that
created tho present difficulty, inasmuch qucs-
tion is presented thero 10 the power TO grant
license 10 amy person persons OF
| good moral character as opposed by the re-
stricton limiting tho granting OF liccnses 10 tho
keepers vi inns, taverns and hotels by many It was
|
enlarged tho powers OF tho Board Vi EXCISE ana aid
not prevent them granting licenses TO innkeep-
ers that this enlarged power beus clearly In con mot
win Tho estrlctions OF me law oil 1857
included III recnacted portions OF the act OF 1901
"Was that view vi the law IN question generally
| tertanedY'
now THE LAW WAS Regarded.
senator Henry =. Murphy, o. Kings county, who is
an able Jurist believe prepared tuls b aud think
that was the view he had OF H. The Boards Excise
as have before sa,u, wore governed IN their action
by TINS interpretation of the law sucn inter probation
receiving conhrmaton by decision made at the Gen
authority Us Judge h. Darwin smith aud mis- ssoc-
ates. IL was ths decision that taken Court
OF appeals, winch Marcn last the gment
vi the General Term, AMI by It's Dierpre taton, IN
effect, restored the limitations oi the 1857.
just here would Ike TO observe that this
general acccptaon OF the Interpretation VI tho o
1870 Tor seven years, ana whicn WAS IN accordance
~,tn the opinion oi Judge Smnh, made certainly a
very strong color of law for tho authority
beon exercised by the Boards oil Excise. Possibly II
may have been legal error ON the part OF the
authorities. but II certainly cannot DO charged that
they had wliiuliy purposel vo,ato a law which was
only defined by resort to tho highest Court N The
slate from judicial power second only to tho Court
oil Appeals itself"
suppose II had been appealed VIVA. thens,
Had Il no Dcen appealed tue decision Of tho O. on
eral Term would have Oeen binding au ihority as to
action whether II had been or years Tor
seventy, without such appeal, thal The IN
depreciation vi tho law rather chan law Itself
That originated this Unsettled condition o affairs that
exists. but, De that as u may, inc decision OF
Court Of Appeals IS nha aud the Legislature alone
change tho policy " IT is desirable make a
change Most VIII diier as 70 tDs; extremists
either side w, OF course, uphoid Their views.
Tue prcseat Board oi Excise had fouud
tho policy stated be the rule action for the Boaras
oil Excise Tor several years previous TO their coming
into Office. II naa entertained an indiv dual OPINION
colnciding wh the Court OF Appeals ~ that il
would have Dccn rather presumpuous Tor me to diner
win The interpretation previously accepted aud acted
upon
..ino decision yor mention, OF course Affected the
rne COURT OF APPEALS DECISION.
"Whon The Court Of Appeals rcndeied its decision
this Board iateiy accepted Tue situatlon apd
has refused ron that time 10 presaut 10 graul
any license Tor the sale OF liquor 10 DC drunk tho
premises to any person or persons Mho wo were MOI
satisfied Kept proposed TO keep hotel as required
by Law. Tie proof TINT have not been vii
iuy disrogardiIg the law 10 found IN tue
iact that only rs licenses OF this class have
issued by this Board May l.
1871 ana none IRON March ~ to that date. II was
altogether mistake tha seems 10 have prevailed IN
the minds oil some that the 5000 places retailing
nquor to be drunk on The premises have license
from this Board. l don't think that We nave any
one granted license not Justified Dy
me statute as ut present intcrlro,ad. II
such mas been tho II
doue through deception the part OF tho
applicant We have made dngcnt inquiry In every
instance, but OF course VIC have 10 depend ure
the representations VI tho applicant, which
require to he In the form oil AFFIDAVIT ana this IL
confirmed by tho examinations made by OH.
50 That We have no reason to tnnk that have
been deceived IN any case
sis true that your Board has granted hotel lceGs. %
OH the simple statutory requirement oil three beds
beng provldedr
at Is not Gross injustice has done This Board
by the statements or Implications that wo have been
Al Wt nv. IA.
beds us establishing place a motel. The law re-
qutres that "A hotel keeper shall have al least thrco
spare beds and puts penalty HIM II has not that
number We have exacted that they should not only
have the accommodation for lodging their guests but
aso have coDvenicnces to furnish meals Tor them.
ike any ordinary hotel II is true We don't REQUIRE
nil the hotels to DO rs large the Windsor aud those
that wc deem small places Ia the city would in the
greater portion oil tho Stato be locke upon first
ca1s hotels and Iuly within the meaning OF
tne law % In TIM ar