Year: 1867

Mr.. Richard O'GOrman. Corporation Counsel
yesterday sent to the Board OF Aldermen
long opinion in the interest OF the liquor
dealers, in which he attempts to show that the
power of granting licenses to sell liquor be-
longs solely to the municipal authorities,
and not the State Legislature. To do
this, he goes back nearly two hundred
years, and quotes the terms OF the
grant given in 1856 by Thomas Dongan
to the "MayOr, Aldermen, and Commonalty OF
"the City of New York." whereby he confirmed
them in the exercise of certain rights ana iran
cbises. among which was "the excise of wine
"and beer" granted in 1858 by the Dutch West
India Company Upon this Dongan grant the
whole argument in favor of the exclusive right
of the municipal authorities to issue licenses
ia based. But we find that section l0
of that charter declares that the Mayor OF
"the said city for the time being, and no
"other,r shall have power to issue licenses.
How. then. does Mr. OGorman uphold the
Common Council in their claim for jurisdio-
ton? BY the language OF the charter, which
is the alpha and omega Of his argument, they
are as effectually debarred from participation
in the license business as he declares the State
Legislature to he.


In 1901 the Legislature placed the power to
grant licenses in the hands of an Excise Com
missioner and in 1891 the Supreme Court held
that the law was obligatory upon all persons
desiring licenses, giving. however, concurrent
jurisdiction to the Mayor. The only way IN
which Mr.. O'G0rman can explain this awkward
decision is upon the presumption that the
Court considered the Corporation to have
consented to the passage of the act whereby
exclusive power was taken from it. But, he
SAYS, to show that the Corporation had not
consented to such transfer, an application was
made to the Legislature to repeal the law, and
in 1924 another act constituted the Mayor,
Aldermen, and Assistants, Excise Commission
ers. The Corporation COunscls argument
is lamentably weak here. IL the power
could rest only and solely in the hands OF
the Corporation. and the Legislature could
have no jurisdiction, then why did the Corpora
tion acquesce in the statute of 1901 Tor twenty
three years {? and why, in 1924 did the municipal
authorities call upon a Legislature which had
no authority in the premises to restore to their
hands powers of which no legislative act cOud
ever have deprived thems Would DE Witt
Clinton, during his mayoralty between 1903 and
1916. have seen his office robbed of It's just
powers without an effort 10 save them!


II is needless to follow at this time the his
tory of legislation and judicial action from the
time of the above decision to the passage OF the
Excise law of 1865, and the decision of the
Court of Appeals affirming its entire constitu-
tionality. Ir is enough to say that not even
the efforts of the Corporation Counsel
in behalf of the 5000 liquor dealers, to
each of whom has just been issued a
secret circular urging n certain candidate for
Mayor as man who can do something for
"us,r nor the appointment by the Board OF Al
dermen oil committee to draft license
ordinance, will be influential enough to set
aside the decision of the last court of appeal


in the State, that the Excise law is binding
upon every run-seller within it.