New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-25
THE RAINES LAW UPHELD.
IT'S CONsTITUTIONALITY AFFIRMED BY
THE APPELLATE COURT.
JUSTICE PATTERSON WRITES THE DECISION AND
ALL THE OTHER JUSTICES coNCUR-THE
COURT OF APPEALS WILL NEXT BE


ALL THE OTHER JUSTICES coNcUR-THE
COURT OF APPEALS WILL. NEXT BE
ASKED FOR AN OPINION.
The Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court yes
terday handed down decision that the Kalhes
Liquor Tax law is constitutional The case was
brought before the Court on appeal from the ruihg
Of Justice Roger A. Pryor. who held that the Elk
else Commissioners had acted properly In refusing
to grant license for year to Frederick u
Einsfed, who had applied for license lor inc
saloon at No. GO Beekman-st. The contention OF
the Excise Board was that the Raines law took
from them the power to grant q license Tor
longer period than that ending on April oV'
In the arguments before the Appellate DIVISION
of the Supreme Court Joseph II. Choate and Samuel
Untermyer attacked the constitutionahty OF the
Raines law, and they opposed by Attorney
General Hancock and Julius NJ. Mayer The deci-
sion in the is written by Justice Patterson
the other Justices concurring.
UNJUST LAWS NAY BE VALID.
After stating the contention Of the Excise Board
and that of the appellant the opinion declares tn'
II the Raines law was unjust, unWlse oppressive
and odious as the appellant declares II to be- the
law could not be declared invalid unless 1t violated
some constitutional provision Gong on 10 ho''ce
the arguments that the law is tax Ia" ana ho'
uniform throughout the State the opinio" P'o
ceeds:
II ia within the competency of the State TO inter
dict all traffic in liquors within its boundaries ihat
is admitted. The Legislature having ere OF reau
lating the traffic. II may make such CO go,
and put such trammels upon me ,aflc ,Se Vel
TO be expedient necessary TO the sale1y ti,
fare or the protection of the people pi tho
oRs o General 1n aw Mhch shall the
traffic in each and every part OF me o'a,e, mako
special provision therefor If diversity arises Of
from in the application to paruGbnaT eGisature is
moi incompetent to authorize that diversity. IL Is
part of the general scheme IL arispS S Situations
as they are found and from the reG9gnuS9infe A Ul
patent facts, such as that tnere ar I,cor in great
metropolis and in remote rural i;,v
in separate parts OF the sans he allowed
in the mpost exaced for the privilege vi snnS
in sTsh trains come IN ws6 Of the one
parts of one general excise System anu WV
ton thereof.
REVENUE NOT THE LAWS MAIN ob'hOi'
That the purpose of the act is not primarily 10
raise revenue from taxation is apparent from o'her
considerations. Leaving out OF the ulscussioh
altogether the pertinent question whether such taxes
as these imposed by the act under considerable" are
in reality anything than license fees ana con- b
Structure and provisions of the itself we ma
that third and conspicuous .h anu the Local option
feature which plays so SSe % the CARDINAL
snts s in the title Of The system
created and established by this &C, Is , S take the
piace Of all prior existing excise LAWS or systems ans
throughout the whole State. 1t estabshes an en-
that which fd Was heretofore under local munSi
pal or community jurisdictions ana aohiis', CO.."
The contention Of the appellant that the law is
unconstitutional because it was not passed by
two-thirds vote Of the Legislature vote necessary
for the appropriation Of public moneys Is uispose
of by the statement that the division OF the en-
Else moneys into one-third for the State and two
thirds for the town city in which the hquor trai
Ar "a carried on is not appropriation OF puonc
,noneys As TO the objection that the Ranes Ia"
Classics the cities in different way thah inc
State Constitution does. the opinion says IN part
Proys c,v IN law smpy makes
provision with regard to the 0t nnrons
of the State unless 1t contains something reian 70
the goyernment OF the city to the
ment Of the State This law contains no such pro.
vsNa The ba exsng EXCISE
that abolition results from the total extneuonn er
and dierent oneDone including the whole State and
embracing in sIge and Of
complete system. even to the VARYING oeta ecai
red BY Ssng Rese or
throughout the whole State is abolished
NOT A SPECIAL CITY LAW.
II "a no mere special city law because 1t abol-
sshes the Office OF Excise Commissioner OF the Guy
Of New-York than would be a law aoohshing the
office OF Coroner. No city or town Is inter
ested in the general plan more than any other. IL
a. a matter IF State and not municipal govern
mental policy and it could never nave De Snc sD
bodies as such should be made potentiai IN tesis-
iation of a general character applying TO me o'atc
as whole. and not specifically or exclusively al
fecting the interests, property or Internal govern
mental affairs of a municipality.
In conclusion the opinion declares that 1.-The order
and final adjudication appealed from must be af-
Armed with costs" . -. -. ..,.
The case will be carried to the Court OF Appeals
hut many lawyers in the city yesterday SAID they
did not expect that there would be reversal or
the decision Of the Appellate Division OF the Su-
preme Court.