New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-27
,I1r RAINES LAW SUSTAINED
nm by THE COURT OF APPEALS
TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.

OF li1b
NOT A SPECIAL CITY MEASURE.
INV TELEGRAPH TO THE TRiBrNEI
,,o, o6-The Court of Appeals has de-
"o. the Raines Liqior TAX Id" Is cohs'i'u
ddea "a" 60 innortant decision was hanueo
hohA' chief Judge Andrews to-day at meet
COW" :. o,urt The Judges were unanimous III
rs o. len that the law is constitutional thus
~ Sp' 40 came position as that assumed oy the
nSi's Divlsion Of the Supreme Court III Ne"
APP g., The Justices OF the supreme court
lAA ~ this earlier decision were some OF theiii
sno ga and some Of them Democrats as Is
hs's oss IN the Court Of Appears.
he cas' sra Andrews. the veteran member OF
CMe' ,rota the opinion He elaooratey
ne cOU' .ho three chief objections to the DILL
cOnsn' .Aa, q appropriates the money OF the
nsnss' ,oo., nurposes. that there was classi-
sus w. 40 ,axes on the various grades OF cities
saa~ Institutional nature, and, third' tha'
a % UNI sracal city law ought to have been
hsS" ,avors. Upon all Of these points
Rh !" "" presented by Joseph II. Choate' the
fa'a ,,ass oyerrules the objections.
chl'' '' NOW THE CASE AROSE.
,.,,sion was reached through test case
III, ~ Fred G. Einefeld against the New
@O's~ r., Excise Board. 1t was an appear run
fOrA y" and order Of the Appellate piV's'o"
Wos'"e" Denartment rendered in APRIL
Of the judgment and order entered on
wn''n If Justice Pryor ct Special Term o',
tne os aismssing the writ OF cei''o'" an
March ~ March "A and cor frmng the pro-
grah'e' :. the New-York City Excise Boaru'
eeeuie S.r. sought to be reviewed by the WIFI,
WHO" va !. the proprietor of saloon at NO w
hHi'i New-York City. On March 70 lie
BeeA'." ,,e New-York Excise Board for IL
spp"'. .,rduct his business for period OF one
etn'e hat date The application was re-
!ee' -o.v unon the ground of want of power III
iu'eD .ha Raines LIQUOR Tax law there was
nv ..u,ar in the Board TO issue a license ioi
no p'"s s,r,ng later than April 80, 1896 That was
W. 1870 on which all Excise Boards were swept
an, ~ existence by the Raines law So
Wv w,nsfe,d presented to the court petition lot
-. writ OF certorari. Justice Pryor. en'e, 'a','e
s.,h. as 70 the constitutionality OF the law
,,,,,uded nevertheless that he ccuio no'
~. .,oc,ment Of the Legislature unconsti'u-
tunal
ro1rRT OF APPEALS OPINION
c,,., 1ust,ce Andrews, in his opinion MADE
public to-day. says:
~. sos ouestion involved in this appeal Is me
,,,s,,,,sonal;,y of the Ranes law. The question OF
.ons,,,utonalty was passed upon by the Appe"'''
n,is,on of the Supreme Court. FIRST Dep'i my Nv
This question is considered in the opih'o. Vi '''",
ssnarment and the decision from which tne appe
and can ada but little TO the very cogent an" s"''
FsArcle ILL., Section 20 Of the C91I 5d mem
,,escribes: THE assent of two-thirds oi .ie LII
eisced n each branch of the Legslai uTe shal
s reouste 10 every bill appropriating me pu."'
nUneys OF Thai Section 10 Of the of 1896 which
,,oviaes that "one-third of the revenues ueIt
e the act less The ear o the treasurer OF the
Sate 10 the credit of the general funo as IN the
me general tax revenue On NE less the amount al
loved foT collecting the same, shall belong 10 tne
city IN which the Iafic was sea sbe he pad
hv the County Treasurer Of such county ana by me
81 ecial Deputy Commissioners to the snperVisor 81
sch town or to the Treasurer fiscal ocer OF such
civ and such revenues shall be appropriated ana eH-
pended By such town or city in such manner az -
now or may hereafter be, provided by law for me
Appropriation and expenditure Of sums received Ioi
excise licenses or in such other manner as ma!
hereafter be provided by law Is IN conrave1 az d ol
position made by the act Of two-thirds OF the rev.
enue town and city purposes
ton Of public money TO local purposes within this
section Of The Constitution. and. IT being CONCEDED
that the act did receive twO-thirds vote OF the
members OF the LEGISLATURE If the claim is well
founded the thirteenth section Of the act. so far as
relates twO-thirds Of the revenues. Is unconsntu-
ilona and void.
THE FIRST POINT DECIDED.
The appropriation of this part Of the excise-tax
revenues is without doubt think for local pur-
pose within Article III. Section o. Of the Constitu-
ton The fact that the purpose for which an APP
yopriation is made is public does not withdraw It
from the inhibition OF the section II the purpose is
also local An act may be local. although public
within this section of the Constitution Seventy
i've years have elapsed since the constitutional
poysion now In question first became part OF the
organic law. and during that long period ms prac-
Tee under statutes which were enacted without
Sothirds vote has prevailed and has never miner miner
been challenged as a violation of the Consttu,
nn Those statutes as distinctly appropriate
o ne moneys 10 local purposes as does me me cons
.alional criticism made TO the act OF 1875, since they
appropriated to the use OF the cities ana towns hot
:o S9 only but the whole OF the excise moneys
This legislative policy which has prevailed for 50
ong period, sanctioned by numerous statutes,
never questioned In the courts and acquiesced in
y all Departments of the State government, is
practical construction Of the constitutional provision
now N question. that appropriation OF excise
pas 10 the use OF towns and cities unoet aco
M. .Oastitution, and this construction ought not
NV 70 be disturbed.
ne trothirds OF the revenues appropriated to
fnrs es Is an Appropriation which operates on tne
;s .au al the very moment Of It's collection. The
NV 50 appropriated never reaches the treas
Sfase,
81 ~ money II was competent for the Legislature
thsrs v,'oe the moneys by majority bill. unless
forms- =. a ostinctiOn between excise money under
Iss .,seee sules and excise taxes under the act or
The on would justify such an appropriation IN
W. 49,. OUT not in the other
d.er inink no such distinction exists. We do not
ture M Important TO consider how far the Leg.sa-
from ~ ~ W alternating the public revenues derived
% iacsI exercise OF the ordinary power Of taxation
Nss ~ ~ private purposes. Clearly IL cannot dis
Aousb ne public moneys of the State for .ocal.
nj ,s,p pubic purpose. except by two-thrds bill.
r~,, ssether the money is actually In the treas
es,,se state or in process of collection. But the
Srsss,e ueclaration in the act of 1896 that two
49,. Tue excise taxes shall belong 10 the towns
fy,s<s is IN accordance with an uninterrupted
ssrs understanding that the Legislature may
dis saclse moneys TO the uses Of the towns and
n!tIs winch they collected by majority bill.
ssust, now TO- late. we think 10 question this con-
'o Of the Constitution.
CLASSIFICATION OF CITIES.
s..oWe perceive no force In the objection based
es. departure in the of 1896 from the cassif-
NO cities made by Article XII. Section 2. Of
r,ssontion The conclusive answer to tho Con-
~ !, @ objection based this section is that the
m ~. Nv Is neither general nor special city law.
nnS u relate TO the property, affairs or govern