New-York tribune., 1903-08-08
SETBACK FOR AUTO LAW.
COURT IS AGAINST IT. |
E1emptin Dealers and MaRuf0ct-
urers Declared Unconstitutional.
OTHER SECTIONS QUESTIONED.

= svg;,,0 the charge against James T Nc
- - was arrested several weeks ago
,..-.--. b. ai5 not have number on the back
- a,,,i-e Justices Olmsted, Mayer and
~. ~ the Court of Special Sessions, yester-
- zooloras unconstitutional the provision OF
=. r7afisv Automobile law requiring that pri-
--s-s register their machines with the
80 AZ State and exempting manufact-
- ers dealers from these requirements.
,,y,ber Of other cases were disposed Of yes
-. and the justices expressed doubt as to
80. oorstitUtionaIity Of the sections of the law
,-ri,b require the court 10 deprive Of his rights
% one-ate his machine for time the person
,,-victed Of violating the law.
--ae decision Of the justices laid stress upon
,i.e present confusion existing because Of the
o1erption Of dealers and manufacturers. and
said that the police were taking into custody
re-sons not liable 70 arrest through 10 fault OF
fbe officers themselves, but through the defect
in the law. a motorcycle was held to he
motor vehicle and under the provisions of the
Law.
The decision is follows
IN the case against James 7. McWilliams, the
court holds that the PROVISIONS OF lne 2aley & Iam
with the Secretary Of State and obtain certificates
mobiles IS unconstitutional because il oiscrinni-
mates between persons OF the same class the clss
hods that the sole purpose Of this provision IS TO
identity automobiles and their users, and that v he
his provision is wise, there Is 40 reason why ali
persons using automobiles should not be treated
alike The is Of the opinion that the dentih
cation should apply 10 all automobiles and users
a such vehicles on the public highways. The
statute. however eXCepts dealers and Lnanutact-
from the provision OF the law which the court
holds is an unconstitutional and unfair dIscrlmina-
tO1 against private owners
The court passes upon the constitutionality Of
these provisions because OF the apparent urgent
necessity 10 stop confusion arising from arrests
made OF persons who not liable arrest under
The provisions Of this statute. IN other words, the
statute II attempting 10 except dealers and manu-
lecturers, has created situation where the police
have means OF distinguishing dealers or manu-
faCtlrers, ana arrests have been made Of dea lers
ard actuTers through fault Of the police,
hut through this defect in the law.
IN the case Of William H. Ellis, the point was
sentence ceprivlng the owner Of automobile of
his right 70 that automobile for the various
periods Of time as stated IN the law. The court,
while expressing great doubt 70 the Cnnstitu-
possible taking Of property without due process of
law. declines 10 entertain the objection. on the
ground that there would be no method of appeal
ing and getting a decision from the higher courts
# the court declines to pass sentence IN accord
ance with the provisions OF Ehe Law.
Tn the cases against Claude Farr. Julian TcZa
and Nathaniel Mitchell, the court allows the de-
uUrTers interpOsed. and discharges the defendants
because Of the tnsufflc-ncy Of the complaints. In
lEe Tea case Il was also COutended that motor
the statute = II be operated by pedallinG.
The court decides against this contention.
The arguments for the defendants and against
the constitutionality of the Bailey law We're
made by William W Niles, Of Niles & Johnson.