New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-24
BREWERS TO FIGHT THE LAW.
COUNSEL. RETAINED WHO WILL. ATTACK THE ACT
AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

COUNSEL RETAINED. WHO WILL. ATTACK THE ACT
AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Samuel Untermyer Of the law hrm OF Euggen-
hesmer Cntermyer Marshall. was asked yestei-
day what steps. II any. would be taken on oehai
~ the brewers In view Of the signing by the Gov
ernor Of the Raines bill He said: Mr. Fitch ana
o,, arm have been retained by several OF the
interests concerned TO test the constitutionaty OIL
the act Other interests affected by the Dill VIII
also he represented by counsel 1t has not YET peeh
definitely determined on what lines the Ia" WIN "e
attacked but. In a general way, IL may De saiu t"a
a. shall argue upon the unconstitutionaty OF 1t on
the grounds on which the bill has been attacked III
the Legislature. We believe the courts VIII nave
difficulty In agreeing with the Governor that 'his
Is a general law. which did not require submission
70 the Mayors OF cities. II the Governor De iis"'
in this the Cities amendment to the CONSTITUTION
Is a sham II the Legislature can combine on one
act a bill fixing license fee for New ork C'y'
another for Brooklyn and stu another Tor bunaio
without being thereby required 10 seho the piii "
the cities concerned very easy way Is pointed OUT
Of avoiding the submission OF bills TO the Mayors
1T ia conceded that II this bill had been In the
form Of separate laws for the different CITIES ihs'eau
of consolidation OF the special laws. II would nave
required the submission OF these separate Jaws 10
the Mayors OF the cities concerned. ACCORDING 20
the Governors conception ihe laws to one bill 50
that part of the act VIII refer 10 each Guy
Of the STATE in ordsr der 10 raen ,s the part Of the law
referring 10 the city OF NewYork need not affect
V.
other cities need not affect the city OF New iork'
They NAV he Independent provisions each appiica-
be 10 Us own city and yet because they nave peeh
grouped In one bill they become general laws, Ch-
less the courts are prepared 10 nullify the nome
rule provision OF the Constitution, we thlnk
II will be found difficult to argue that this Is gen
eral law ,,.,
The law is plainly tax measure as oistln,,
guished from a police regulation III aDoilsnes an
Boards Of Excise. takes away all discretion OF any
local parties and organizes a complete STATE ma.
chinery for the collection Of the tax on the tne9y
Of revenue only The new Constitution proviases
tina. the Legislature may not vote the money OF me
State money under the management OF ,ne Soa es
for local purposes except by the atfirmatlve VOTES
Of two-thirds OF each branch OF the Leg.siatute:
This law, which puts the entire revenue iroi1 .pe
collection OF the liquor tax into the hahos oi tne
State then votes back two-thrds or u 10 eacn
Of the localities from which II was conected couu
not. claim, have been lawfully passed. VIII VIII,
cut the OF two-thlrds OF the members OF eac"
house .
We believe that one OF the grayest op1ectohs 70
THIS law IL found In the fact that the TAX - not IN
iorm II is not uniform in the city OF New aorn
ir the Twenty-third and Twenty-f3urth VAL eo
me city declared by the law 70 De 20" T.
mat the tax In those wards Is 10 be ON! si% ,o
license, as against $3.50 in other parts OF the c,.!,
The case certainly involves very many h, H 60
ink question Of law upon the construction VI pc 20
visions OF the Constitution. and we noPe ~
ton"