The sun., 1891-12-12

interest, in many cases not unmingled with
amusement. the painful wrigglings OF the
ErcninO Post TO get out OF tho false position
In which it's malicious hatred Of tho present
municipal Government has involved It. It
has been charging for weeks that the two
present Commissioners of Excise who be-
long TO Tammnny Hall and were appointed
by Mayor GRANT have been britally indif-
fcrcnt to public morals and crlmlnally neg
lcctful Of their duty in regard to the
licensing Of saloons in the neighborhood OF
public schools. The terms brutal indiffer
cnce " and criminal neglect" as applied
to Mr.. KOCH and Mr.. FITZPATRICK. aro the
Posts own libel.
We exposed the other day the trick ofmap
making by which the Evening Post sought
to give color to its charges. and also its per-
sistent and systematically dishonest sup
preston Of the dates on which the licenses
in question were originally granted. Until
then. no reader OF the Euenin0 Post
had any intimation. from that source. at
least. that the hundreds Of saloons on its
maps and in it's lists were not without ex-
ception originally established by the Com
missioners whom 1t Is SO unscrupulouslv at
tacking. 1t Is step gained that we have
forced this tough customer to confess to its
own public that 1t has been deceiving them
by suppressing the vital facts Of tho case.
and to resort to revised expedients Of mis-
representation.
This humiliatng admission is made in the
subjoined paragraph, in which the italics
are ours:
"Whcn the appalling extent OF this evil association
was discovered by the investigation thereupon begun
by this journal. the responsibility rxed mat.
ter Of course on the city authorities by whose ap.
provn the saloons allowed be located namely
the Excise and the fact that under tho
law there is actual renewal OF liquor licenses from
year to year. but that has to be issued each
year after thorough examination In every case. xemed
make he present Commissioners alone anneruue for the
Objectionable positions of saloons"
Why. then. did not the Ereniig Post do
what any honest journal intending to be
Just to all men would have done. namely,
state the truth about the dates OF the L.
censes and allow its readers to form their
own conclusions rs to whether the present
Commissioners were or were not "alone
answerable"?
Having thus confessed that It has
wronged and slandered Mayor GRANT and
his Commissioners in charging the latter
with brutal Indifference and criminal neglect
OF duty in the matter OF the original location
of vast majority OF all the saloons which
it has specified as being. in its opinion, too
near the schools. the Post takes refuge in
the very quibble to which we expected it
to resort. We understand 1t as COM
planning now that the present Commission
ers have not revoked or refused to renew
on the annual application those licenses
first granted by their predecessors. which
until now 1t has been representing as hav-
ing been issued originally by the votes of
Mr.. FITZPATRICK and Mr.. KOCH. We quote
from the Post:
"The Excise Board now In existence 10 responsible
for the existence of saloon in New York city 1t
is directly chargeabe with the responsibility for every
existing nfaction OF the rule that says that no license
shall issue for saloon in the immediate vicinity of
school, church. hospital asylum As matter of law
every applicant for license whether license or
renewal appears before the Excise Commission de
Tho courts have held that license Is present
right. and vested one. 1t can be taken away by
the that conferred it. the Board becom
ing satisfied that the license wOrthy and i'm.
properly bestowed"
Again:
THAT previous Board has failed to com ply with the
requirements Of the law in granting license should
not be used as authority or excuse for infrac
tons OF tho law and be made tho ground for perpetu
ating public evil"
Here is an Intentional confusion OF terms,
for the purpose OF confusing the mind of the
reader; and In this attempted confusion Of
ideas is the Posts second trick. a little more
subtle. but not less discredtable. than that
which it has been compelled to abandon.
1t will be observed that In one place the
Post speaks OF infractions Of the rule, and
in another place of infractions OF the law.
There is no provision OF law against the
establishment OF a saloon in the immediate
neighhorEood Of n school. The law merely
provides that the person to whom q license
is issued shall have good moral character
and that the Commissioners shall be salts
fled that 80 license may properly be grant,
cd for such sale In the place proposed" Tho
rule as to the immediate vicinity" OF
schools is mere rule Of tho Board governing
it's own practice. There is nowhere. so far
as we arc aware, any construction of what
is meant by Immediate vicinity" except
such as is supplied in personal opinion, in
no case any more authoritative, legally,
than GoDKINs personal opinion that
anywhere within six hundred feet Is
Immediate vicinity" Different Boards
and different Commissioners have in.
terpretod In different ways rule
which. after all. is mere generalization Of
discretion vested by the law in the Board.
The Posts attack on the present Commits
sloners, therefore. for criminal neglect"
OF duty. resolves Itself upon analysis into
complaint that they have not revoked or
withheld licenses previously granted by
their predecessors In the exercise OF their
own Interpretation OF their own rule gov
erning their own practice under the dscre-
tion vested in them by the law.
The Evening Post knows. or ought to
know. that the Board Of Excise con lawfully
revoke and cancel license only when it
has been obtained by fraud, or when the
person holding 1t is shown to have violated
somo provision OF the Excise law. In tho
matter OF revocations 1t deals with persons.
not places. For the present Board to at
tempt to-day to revoke license which
previous Board had originally granted and