The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-05-09
THE RAINES Law attacked.
Argument HefOre the Appellate Division OF
the Supreme Court In the BnIosh Case.

ING upFttu hu ~ AbhAOHn SAACs
ALBANY, May s.-The case Of Alexander
Balogh. a saloon keeper of New York city.
against Henry II. Lyman. the State Commits
sioner of Excise. came up for argument this
morning before the General Term Of the SUI
preme Court. Appellate Division. W. B. Don't
hee and Charles H.. Haldane appeared for the
plaintiff and Attorney-General Hancock and
Assistant Attorney-General Kisselburg APP
peared in behalf Of the COMMISSIONS OF Excise.
This is an appeal from an order OF the Special
Term Of the Supreme Court at Albany. denying
an injunction order restraining the defendant.
as Commissioner of Excise, from interfering
with the plaintiff in the prosecution Of his bust
ness as a retail dealer in intoxicating liquors
during the tendency OF this action and until the
expiration OF the term for which the license
was granted. March 81, 1897, and under which
he is conducting his business.
Tho plaintiffs law yers argued that the ap-
pellant's claim does not involve any question of
police power. II the appellant be allowed to
continue in business under the license which he
holds. he is willing to comply with all the police
regulations contained In the act. 1t was argued
that the appellant, by complying with the act
of 1892, acquired property rights and privileges
of which he cannot be deprived except by due
process of law. The Liquor Tax law deprives
him of his property without due process OF law
and OF rights and privileges otherwise than by
the law OF the land 4 statute is not the law OF
the land. nor does 1t constitute due process Of
law. tTaylor agt. Porter; IIurtado agt. Cali
fornia, Ito L.. s.. 535.) The police power of the
state cannot be set up to control the inhibition
of the Federal Constitution. WallinG agt.
Michigan. ll0 L. -. $50 The Liquor Tax law
impairs the obligation OF a contract in plaintiffs
case. 1t also denies 10 the plaintiff equal pro-
lection of tho law.
IL was also argued that the appellant Is enti-
tied to the injunction order. because In a Gov
eminent like ours IL may be- said that any act
which would deprive n citizen OF the power TO
exercise his lawful trade or privilege must be
considered as working an irreparable injury,
particularly when the said act is clearly forbid
den by the state and Federal Constitutions.
IBarthet agt. City Of New Orleans. "a Fed. Rep,
b83.D The Liquor Tax law ~fOrfeits and annuls
property rights and. privileges without the
slightest necessity and ignores the obligation OF
the contract; a thing that Is clearly unconstitu-
tional, in that II requires the plaintiff to pay a
greater price than Others have to pay for the
or, yi!ege of engaging in n lawful trade.
The Acknowledgement argued that the act IT.
aelf is clearly within both the State and Federal
constitutions and the Fourteenth Amendment
10 the Constitution. He further argued that all
the provisions are clearly within tho police reg
ulating power Of the state: claimed that there
IL no Impairment to the obligation Of contracts
by the law. and that there is no unfairness In
It's provisions or any discrimination made be-
tween the rights OF citizens. BY the law n
York, and any person who holds "A license ter
minated by the terms Of this law can recover
back from the city such portion OF the money
which Is paid in and remaining unused AS the
proportion used bears to the whole term OF the
license. and the law il therefore no hardship.
The court took the papers aud Will probably
render u decision at an early date.