New-York tribune., 1902-01-27
NOT REVENUE. BUT RESTRICTION.
POWER OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER TO PRE-
VENT ILLEGAL SELLING.

hE-NI ll%LEGAL SEl4LING.
To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: The letter OF the Rev Dr. Peters IN ,,our
issue Of January 20 is very timely It raises the
question OF the responsibility of the State authori-
Ties for the non-enforcement OF part of the Raines
law. say of part, for the law as DR. Peters
pointed out has two distinct objects These are
stated in the title act in relation to the traffic
in liquors and for the taxation and regulation NJ
the same, and 10 provide for local option As a
tax law 1t has been efficiently enforced In 1900 IL
brought In taxes TO the amount of s2 5s 1s9 25 at
total expense OF collection of sS3 1853 CO. AS law
for the regulation Of the liquor traffic It has been
more honored in the breach than the observance"
When the State officials have been confronted
with the charge of overzealousness in enforcing the
taxing provisions, and of stlessness IL not torpor
toward the restrictive provisions, they have been
reported as replying that 1t was. first and foremost
tax law.
Such was not the view of Attorney General Han
cock when he championed the constitutionaltv OF
the act against Mr. Choate, IN the case of Einsfeld
agt. Murray nor OF the Court of Appeals when II
unanimously declared the act to be constitutional
In the opinion of tho court, written by Chief Juar.
Andrews, appears this language: THE claim that
the act OF 1895 is tax law having for its primary
purpose the raising OF revenue for the support Of
government. involves the theory that the lesis-
Iature In enacting II intended to depart from ths
principle upon which all excise laws have hitherto
been founded That principle has been by exacton
ana restriction TO limit dangerous traffic In the
Ihere can be no doubt that large revenue will
result from excise taxes imposed by the act of
lsso' nor that this was contemplated by the legis-
iature. But this will be a consequence Of tho
system and was not the motive of its adoption. It
was manfestly not the intention OF the legislature
to encourage the traffic but to control restrict and
regulate It. The analogy between the law of
1oSo ana former excise laws is strongly marked
mere Is the same necessity of public certificate
of a right to engage in the traffic the same re-
M {ota
trafic and reasonably protect the public against it's
t,a ack,nowledged evils; the same principle Of local
civil damage law, These extracts are from pages se
81; SIs and and S5s Of Volume lag. NewYork Reports
No! The State authorities cannot excuse their
mpy with Gh the e c9eco6 5HSf that 1T they are charged
motive of the legislature in adopting the act which
the state Excise Commissioner and his subordinates
restriction Such is the unanimous declaration Of
What powers does the act bestow upon the Stat.
Tbe1 Tcass a,e f0r the Of the resction7
the Supreme Court to special term I5lG Of such
s ae se1ns5te any false statement was made in
act is Violated at the place designated in said Ger
Saoe nS @ as the place where such traffic is to be
agent servant, bartender any person whomsoever
shall of Of the II 'Pf PfoRsons RGeer Of Of said said
ton res shall P0n S of of any any such viola
nee or court revoking and canceng such certih-
cate" 1t is expressly declared that criminal
precedent 10 the granting of this order. This pro-
ceedlng 1t Will be noticed. is civil, criminal II
IL inteIlued 10 be summary. and by amendment
or last year the liquor seller may be enjoned from
sellins during the pendency of the proceeding If
the order is granted the certificate, which costs
$500, becomes worthless ~
Another section OF the statute empowers the
EXCISE Commissioner to secure a permanent IN
guhctlon against any who shall trafTic In
llquors contrary to any provision of act Still
iloiher secton subjects who sells Iouor
IN violation of this act Ito penalty of $50 for each
Commissioner OF Excise" $50 I'@'e
y, Yet again every violation of the law by the
Hceiseu liquor seller works forfeiture of his hond
and entities the Excise Commissioner to bring a
penalty of 81 800. " 'io iulI
such then, are the powers OF the Excise Com
missioner over the Illegal liquor seller First to
Sance MS license which cost $500 second to enjoin
MIN from continuing his business Illegally th,rd
to recover penalty OF $50 for every voIatinnu. tu.
fourth to recover from his bondsman 1900 Does
any one doubt that exercise OF these nowerS
against even few liquor sellers with notice that
tnes were 10 De used against all who continued to
trafnc In liquor Illegally, would be more efYactIvo
than any amount Of criminal prosecution? 'e
New-Yorl. Jan. 25 1902 ~ 0NDiNh-