The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-07-11
local OPTION YET IN FORCE.
49,, .rs1IcE FORBES MIXES AN I'M
A.rfyI LIQUOR Law DECISION

-,. Cannot he Made 10 Grant II.
V.. where No-I.icense Excise Com
,..,or.r. Have Becn Chosen who Re
&C.. 10 Grant Applications TO Sell Liquor.
c.,,sror,, y. " July S.-Justice Gerrit A.
sn,t tho supreme Court handed down q
s,o.,.jon horc yesterday In case OF construc-
~. a, tho excise law, holding In effect. that
80, option Is still in force In this State. The
s'.is,on "a a very important one. as 1t 10 the
at time that the question has been sluarely
p..ntod TO the courts OF the right OF Board OF
yy-,,.s updur the laws as recently amended. to
-. llcense Wit en- tho m embers OF the Board.
.maior.ty Of them. were elected by the vot
A township as no-license Com mssion-
e The question has been debated wide
90. ,uonr LAWYERS whether tho excise law
=, stands prohibiting Boards OF Excise
80, arbitrarily refusing" to grant licenses.
not in effect do away with local option
M. ro,ent decisions OF Justice Parker and
.,hor Justices regarding the excise law were
,S,..ss where the Boards OF Excise did not
..ss upon the merits OF applications presented
.s,h.n. hut on technicnlities OF tho law. which
i'm the main question OF local option outside
.hs cocnzance of the court. Justice Forbes
ho,ds that the members OF Boards OF Excise
s,vearsht to assign as reason for with
ho,dioc licenses n declaration for no license
an tns part Of the votors Of a township as ex-
nr..sed Mt the polls: anu he holds. therefore.
.n.t local option AS understood in the past is
stIll in force in this state.
Tbs proceeding before Justice Forbes was
an argument upon n writ Of certiorari review
Inc the action OF the Excise ommissioners Of
IN, town Of Owego. Tioga county. In refusing
10 grant license 10 Burr j. Davis for the
Ihwaca House in Owego. upon the ground
h. rry . l., N~le
had declared for no license. The Ahwaga
House Is the principal hotel in Owego. and 1t
VA, admitted that the proprietor was in all re-
spects highly respectable man. 1t was also
admitted that the application for the license
vas regular. tho form and character OF the
bonds were good and that all the forms and
tschnicai,ies OF the law regarding the appli-
eation for the license and the manner OF Its
consideration and final refusal had been COM
pied with. The sole question raised was
whether the Commissioners had the right to
refuse the license because the voters of the
town had expressed their opposition to the
granting Of any licenses at all.
Judge Forbes holds in the first place that it
was not intended by the Legislature of the
State to substitute Justice OF the supreme
Court in place OF the Commissioners Of Excise
when they refuse to act favorably in granting
alicense to any person. and that his duty. or
.nicr e law il it is disobeyed. lie declares
that II the Legislature in any way sought to
use the Supreme Court rs the instrument for
sioners, such intention or attempt on the part |
Of the Legislature would be unconstitutional. |
o. course. II the Boards OF Of, Excise IN consider
did not comply with the proper legal require. |
ments the courts might interfere. but IL. in |
tse u merits Of tie case as to Keep Within the
province which the law has marked out for |
them. and for them alone. the courts cannot |
The only remaining proposition to be dis |
this the the acted
court In the easel OF the application Of |
Martin r rel vs. ,symonds ct a. Justice
Of this state is not in force. He seems to have |
sa statutes Of ls45. chapter 300. passed. May q.
passed Feb. Ii. 1916. both OF which acts were
iispeaed by chatter PA ef the Laws OF
s 81 1873 and is4eS We're Th repea tss
By the act Of 1s47 there can bs no doubt. and
perhaps there Is some question whether local
passed April il. 1870. and also to amend the
general act for the suppression Of intemper-
Siihe act Of 1878 tho folloSins 81 provision is
sbs IN any en manne Noshhg hesein f contained
where the majority Of voters have, voted Tor.
or shall hereafter vote for local prohibition in
vote. until such city or town shall reverse BY
vote such local prohibition,
vhdR have been TN unable to find lev WHICH
PECULIAR wording Of section 9 Of the Laws OF
1873 predicates the validity Of local option
twas assumed was then in force. permitting
local prohibition; it will be seen by reference to
SNAPPER sl 90! Of the Laws OF 1892. section A.
out prescribing definitely and ut length. IA
ala thelaw OF lS+5. the method Of preparing the
t Sno' tb ana Of casting the vote by the
make section Al. OF the act OF 1892. dependent
EoG doa any prior law Of this state. but in terms.
town 9S to ssy BY 81
EaG a., mat local prohibition shall be enforced
NAV mat ss tHWn when majority OF the voters
N Ssms as follows: Section Al. Local Option.
M Nothing herein except section 81 shall in any
~ %s Hnier apply to any town where the majority
~ M'eIs nave voted tor or hereafter vote for
~ tSeS a. prohibition until such town shall reverse
py vote sucQ local prohibition
ont ont BY which ballot shall be prepared in
o nh me voter shall say that he Is in favor OF
10 ora1 pIoh,blton: but he surely has the right
w nd,' o. 10 place upon his ticket any name and
f sU.e !or any Derson whom he knows to be in
o efGy Of Of f t6s g Grant licenses And
fps aa by their ballots. voting for an Excise
cs "ara uhon whom they, rely not to- grant II.
IN th.t ,'ey nav u pcEiect right TO 90 80. anu |
II! IN mat manner they do. by local option, in
re meaning ag q section II the Laws of 1852: and
an ,e st,ooIinmlssoners 50 elected have an un-
nv"1'e a. right relying upon their own judg-
~ oi t 70 refuse all licenses and thus establish
III d 49,. Iocal prohibition under that law
Oh H lhe return it appears that q majority Of
tn,.v voters Of the town of Owego at regular
i law, meeting. voted for the enforcement OF
i csnl prohibllion: and against the granting OF
inS Fx,coy clecting majority OF non -licens-
W III ~, rxcise Commissioners. and this court
terisre et w GtsFrnle their action. nor will it in
people expressed by such majority"