New-York tribune., 1896-01-19
same time. 50 that no one can say We are dis
eliminating"

eliminating
SOME FURTHER COMMENT BY A. r. PAGE.
POINTS MADE PLAIN IN THE FINDING OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
Alfred r. Page who was engaged by the Excise
Commissioners the special counsel for the con-
duct OF the case which carried TO the Court
Of Appeals on the question OF the legality OF lcens-
ing saloons within 200 feet Of church or school
house having closely studied the opinion handed
down by the Court of Appeals. talked readily upon
its provisions when yesterday by a Tribune re-
porter at his Office No. 1872 Nassau-st THE opinion
OF the Court Of Appeals on the controversy is. he
said very complete and concise, and there can he
no misunderstanding about the law The Court mas
decided that any person licensed for the sale OF
lruor I'm place within 200 feet OF church or school-
house az the time OF the passage OF the Excise law
could be licensed hereafter, so long IA he continued
I'm possession but that II for cause he abandoned
the licer9c the power to grant license for any one
TO carry on business a, these liquor stores ceases
! II follows therefore. under this decision. that the
Excise Commissioners in having allowed these IL
ccnses 10 be transferred subsequent purchasers
have not only exceeded their power. but nave eNei
+ cisod a power they were prohibited from using ana
/ tbe ucenscs 80 granted are consequently void
..Than the commissioners have full power 10 re-
woke all such licenses granted since the passage of
the Excise law
.It is not necessary that the Commissioners should
take any formal action 10 revoke these Hce''ses De
cause. they having exceeded their power in granting
,rcr the licenses are already void. and revocation
s not therefore, necessary. They are revoked by
reason OF nlegalIty from the outset.
! Nr PAGE in the course OF some further comments
un,n TIE effect OF the decision said the question
had been raised as to whether the icensee OF ca
loon before the passage OF the Excise act. who had
since sold his house. could reacquire the business
and insist upon a license being granted TO him. on
tho ground that he was the censee or the premises
before the adoption of the act. and that MS tenn
! rorary withdrawal did not validate MS rights oi'
| this point Mr.. Page gave II as MS opinion 'ha'
he object of the statute as interpreted by the Court
| of Appeals allowed persons engaged IN business
prior to the passage OF the act TO obtain an ahhuai
rassus NJ the license so long they continued the
business But II Is obvious that when once these
persons have retired from the business ali power
TO license the place ceases II would De paipaoie
evasion of the act allow these persons atter once
! abandoning these licenses to obtain renewai on
tho ainsv grounds that | have mentioned above
The Court of Appeals has decided once and Tor all
that there Is no vested right in any properly 'ha'
I coud be taken away by the Legislature. Ihat ques
ton has also been settled by the United states su-
preme Court, and its value as controversial point
| has now entirely disappeared
| Asked as to whether the ponce wouu nave Po"ei
or authority TO interfere with saloons within the
nroscrbed limit and to insist upon their Closing MT
page roplled: 1T would be somewhat dlihcult lor
tb. Police Department to act in this matter without
| ,ha as.istance OF the Excise Board Without such
'''siston,~ the noce would rot know whether the
| owner OF a saloon within the 2V,feet lm,t was ,
| IaroI ucansee and the only way the question coulu
| he established would be by consuming tne excise
| records consequently the statements that the po-
lice authorities will act irrespective OF tne ENSse
| ronmiss,oners may be dismissed as groundiess. ,
snenkng of the clamorinss which had been raised
T., cert IN quarters the harcshps entailed upon
aloonke@pcrs by the decision. Mr.; Page said: These
harishus arise no; from the strngency OF the law
nr from the decision Of the Court OF Appeals. Dut
Sro,n the fact that instead of the law being ooeyed
| in the past people have. against the express pro-
| ,sions of the law, been allowed 10 Duy these pro
scrib.i ni,ces and invest their money In them. The
ior, aIoDted the Legislature was not Intended
to be harsh because the Legislature had the power
b,d Il esirei to prohibit Immediately the carrying
n a ~ tho louor business within the limit. But in
Consideration for the people who had established
husness the LEGISLATURE permitted those particular
| Deonle TO continue. II tine law had been observed
| me saloons would have gradually been eliminated
| Conseouently the alleged hardships arose from a
| violation of the Law. Many OF the cases mentioned
IN thc papers have been those OF persons who took
| IN m licenses after notice given that the point
| roud he taken to the Court of Appeals. ana conse-
"rently they practically betting the amount
! OF purchase money Oh the issue OF the courts ue-
i.icp