New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-09-12
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
POWER OF THE EXCISE BOARD.


REPLY OF THE COMMISSIONERS To THE ARGUMENT
OF Kx-JUDGE DTTTENHOEFER.
The adjourned hearing in the case OF Andrew
r Early charged with violation Of the excise law by the
society for the Prevention Of Crime called up be-
fore the Commissioners Of Excise yesterday at D. ~
On former hearing, exJudge Dittenhoefer, counsel
for Mr. Early interposed number Of objections to the
receiving Of the testimony In the case, and an adjourn
ment was agreed upon give the Board Of Excise time
10 submit ruling upon the objections offered Com
missioner Morrison president OF the Board yesterday
caused 10 be read a vOlumiDous answer TO Judge Dit
tenhoefers objections, OF which the following Is sum
mary
The FIRST objection Of the counsel based upon the
fact that the defendant already under indictment
for the same offence and II convicted his license woulo
be ipso facto annued secondly that the statute COD
ferrng authority upon Boards fExose to revoke licenses
did not authorize revelation for violation OF the Sun
day law; and lastly that the section ofaw comforting the
requisite authority was IN fact amendatory OF SO 'ton
which relates solely to the Niagara frontier district
and is plainly unconditional 1t is the opinion
of tho board that the authority OF Boards OF
Excise Is distinct from that Of the courts
to annu licenses; and in support or the
opinion separate sections Ofthe statutes the one CONFER
ring theauthorty OrevOka upon Boards OF Excise ana
the other comforting the authority upon the courts
but with no exclusive supreme power are cited IL the
document In answer the charge Of unfarness In re-
curing a person complained Of to respond to TWO pro-
eeedings for the revelation Of his license the board give
AZ as Their opinion they have discretion IN the
premises, but obliged TO hear Complaints "heh
brought by any citizen. 49,,
The letter of the law to give the board dscre-
fionary power in insttuting these PROCEEDINGS,
but such discretion Is accorded when complaint Is
already lodged. In short the Legislature has pro
Vided this examination before Boards OF Excise au.
ditOnaly trials In court and relief from tnls STATE OF
r oan be sought there" In answer 90 the second
beeOn OF the counsel for the defence who claims that
tue anendatOry comforting the power Of reVOk
does not amend the laws of 1887, which alone contain
the Sunday law, but merely those OF 1870, the cOmml
which provides that All acts on the same subject,
whenever passed, what Is termed in par materiai
are 70 construed constituting one act ana are 70
be SO INTERPRETED that all of them and all their clauses
NAV be operatiye.". In addition Is quoted the
direct OF the amendatOry section providing hat
- the provisions Of the law OF 1887 shall DC
taken and construed part Of this act etc. In regard
TO third objection Of the counsel the commissioners
rule that the point raised having been already passed
upon by the Supreme Court, who fully recognized the
authority OF The Board Of Excise 10 revoke licenses, 1t
unnecessary to render any decision.
In conclusion, the present commissioners OF TX
else expressed themselves as OF the opOnlOD
that the law as, contained in the statute book
and interpreted by judicial authority, cOustralus them 10
proceed with the hearing OF this complaint. They there
fore override the objections, aud direct the testimony
TO be taken" .
reading OF these rulings Of the board and remarked That
ne considered it very able answer on the part OF the
commissioners, although ne begged TO diher IN the III
depreciation of sOme portions of the statutes. .
The testimony not taken yesterday, ana DIV the
counsel the stands adjourned unh Oc-'
lober 8.