New-York tribune., 1896-01-20
is II AN OBSTACLEl
AN INTERESTING POINT CONCERNING
THE RAINES EXCISE BILL

FIRMED IN THE NETWORK CONSTITUTION
STAND IN THE WAY OF DIvERTING
PART OF THE MONEY DERIVED
FROM LICENSES IN THIS
CITY TO ANY OTHER
THAN LOCAL
Use
An interesting point was raised yesterday a
to whether not a blunder had been made In
the framing OF the Raines Excise bill. by which
1t is proposed that the local authorities Of this
city shall be deprived of their control over ex-
else licenses and the city treasury shall be de-
prived of ore-haf the money accruing from
the privilege to sell liquor within the city limits.
The Raines bill. which, it has been authorita-
lively announced, Is TO be pushed through the
Senate and Assembly this week, transfers from
the local authorities the right to grant the priv
ilege OF selling liquor to State officials. and
divides the sums levied for such privileges be-
tween the city and the Stat, in equal amounts.
Is the bill which proposes these changes un-
constitutional 80 far as X relates TO the city OF
New-York?
Lawyers Of ability who have been examining
the question are OF the opinion that the measure
will not stand judicial inspection. These
lawyers take the ground that no ltll can be
Mayor and the city government the right to
grant liquor licenses the right to collect the
money arising from the grant IF these Licenses
and to appropriate it exclusively to municipal
purposes.
The argument against the Raines bill Is that
1t violates the Dongan charter granted to the
city by Charles II in 1856. the Montgomerie char
ter granted by George II in 1880. and the Consti-
tuition Of III confirming the same. Both the
ancient charters give to the Mayor Of New-York
the exclusive right to grant all liquor licenses.
The Dongan charter declares that the Mayor
shall have power TO grant licenses annually.
under the public seal of said city, TO all tavern
keepers. nnkeepers. ordinary keepers, victuallers
and all public sellers OF wine. strong waters.
cider beer or any other sort Of liquors by retail
within the city aforesaid, Manhattan's Island. or
their liberties precincts thereof"
After authorizing the Mayor to receive the
license fees. the charter provides:
All which money as by the sad Mayor shall be so
received shall be used and applied the public use
Of the said Mayor. Aldermen and commonalty OF
the said city of New, York ana ther successors,
done to any Of the lieutenants or governors OF
this province for the time being or any OF their
deputies
The Montgomerie charter Of 1890 gives the
same power of license 10 the Mayor, and absoves
him from making any account thereof to the
King. his heirs. successors or any other person
whatsoever.
CONVENTIONS OF THE LAWYERS.
The lawyers hold that those chapters which
were confirmed and continued by the people OF
NewYork in the Constitution Of l777 are ir-
revocable and nvolate-. and point to various
decisions of the highest courts of the State and
the United States which are declared inferen-
| TALLY to confirm them.
| This question was once the subject OF an
elaborate and studied opinion from Richard
O'Gorman. the Counsel TO the Corporation In
1866 the Legislature created what was known as
the Metropolitan Police Board. with jurisdic-
ton over New-York. Kings. Richmond and
Westchester counties one of the powers OF the
Board issue excise licenses. collect the
fees and apply the money to defraying the ex-
! penses OF the maintenance OF the police in the
METROPOLITAN district In 1867 the Board OF AL
dermen called in the Corporation Counsel Mr..
OGorman. afterward Judge Of the Superior
Court. for ar opinion as 10 whether the rlent e,
to eypend excise money collected In New ork
city TO maintain the metropolitan distrlct
police lawfully existed Mr.. OGorman exnaust.
lively reviewed the points of the case. cited the
Dongan and Montgomere charters Wnicn con-
fcrred the right of license on the Mayor
and exempted him from accounting 20 the crown
or its representatives for the manner In Wnlcn
the excise money expended. and also called
attention to the Constitution Of III, which spe-
officially confirmed all existing charters from the
Crown OF England
After reference to the attempt Of the Legisla-
ture in 1901 TO authorize the appointment OF an
Excise COMMISSIONS. Mr.. O'Gorman shows that
in 1924 act was passed which restored 10 the
Mayor. Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen or
New-York full power and control over excise else
licenses in the city. Excise laws passed In 1880
and again In 1916 specially exempted New-fork
City from their provisions because or the exist
ence of the grants and privileges conveyed to the
of l.- he .f
Mr.. O'GOrman referred to the Act or ls5o.
which was declared unconstitutional. and then
fully considered the act passed in 1891, provid-
ing for the appointment OF Excise Commission
ers in New-York City by the city authorities.
whose general provisions have remained upon
the statute book to the present time. This
act as originally passed gave the Chief Justice
Of the Supreme Court the Presiding Justice or
the Court of Common Pleas and .he Recorder
the power to appoint the Commissioners of Ex-
else. But it did not interfere with the right OF
the city TO collect and appropriate all excise
fees collected within its limits.
1t was not until 1865. Mr. O'Gorman said. that
ii was proposed 10 interfere with the municipal
officials in their issue OF liquor licenses. or to
divert the money from the uses decreed by the
city authorities After reciting many cases and
court decisions. Mr.. O'Gorman concluded that
the act OF 1866 in violation of the Constitu-
ton Of the state and also of the United States.
because Il abrogated the old charter rights Of
the city. The excitement which followed. con-
nected with the rise and downfall Of Tweed. OBJ
sCured all minor questions fcrsa time, and the
case was NOT carried INTO the courts. >ut at
the end Of the Tweed regime the new charter
which was adopted abolished the Metropolitan
Police Board. and the right OF granting
liquor licenses and to receive and dispose OF the
excise money reverted to the city. the reason
for a judicial determination Of the questions In
volved disappeared
The passage Of the Raines bill. 1t is contended,
would revive these. as it proposes to interfere
with the ctys ancient privileges. Those wco
have looked into the question predict that the
measure would not receive the approvai OF tne
rourts If its constltutionality should be tested
provided 1t passes. ~, a..
At any rate. the point raised about the bill 10
an interesting one.