Year: 1877

The injustice done to large class of busi-
ness men by the wavering, illegal and tricky
conduct OF the Excise and Police boards
Excise Commissioners, after the Court of
Appeals decision, had notified all appli-
cants that the law Of 1857, restored by that
decision, prohibited the licensing of any
places but bona tide inns, taverns or hotels,
and had not accepted dollar from any ap-
plicant until his license was granted, the
liquor dealers whose establishments did not
come within the meaning Of the law would
have known just where they stood.
They must either have closed their places
or have understandingly accepted the
responsibility of selling without license
and risking the penalty Of the law. But
the Excise Comm issioners, for some reason
not yet developed, seem to have directed
their attention solely to getting money out
of the liquor dealers. Deposits were ac-
cepted from applicants on the pretence that
their right to o license should be forthwith
examined and decided. and tho Police
Commissioners allowed the liquor dealers





regarded as evidence of their desire to
comply with the law and would protect
them from arrest. BY this action of the
two boards liquor dealers were tempted and
encouraged to pay their money and to carry
on their business in the beief that they
had fully satisfied the requirements of the
law rs interpreted by the officials intrusted
with its enforcement


Either the Excise and Police Commission
ersPwere wrong when the former took the
liquor dealers money without granting
them licenses, and when the latter virtually
authorized the sale of liquor by those who
held the Excise Boards receipts, or they
are wrong now when they admit that their
acceptance OF the money conferred no priv
ilege on the dealers who paid it, and arrest
and drag off to jail the persons who have
been selling liquor under the practical
guarantee Of the Police Board that they
would not be molested. In either case a
Mayor who desires to do his duty should
remove the offending Commissioners,
especially MS their conduct in the one case
is not free from grave suspicion,
and in the other is a cruel outrage
on g large class of business men.
Mayor Ely states that lie wishes
he could get rid of the whole lot, and thus
officially condemns their conduct. But he
contends that it is not in his power to re-
move them, because the Governor must
conf rm such removals before they take ef-
feet. He thinks that the Governor might
probably fail to confirm his action. With
all Difference to tho Mayor, he cannot justify
the neglect of his own official duty by the
plea that some other officer may per-
haps be delinquent. He virtually con-
demns the conduct Of these Commits
sioners and admits that they ought all to
be swept away" II is his plain duty,
therefore, to remove them and transmit his
reasons to the Governor. Certainly the
Governor cannot act until the Mayor has
acted. 1t is for the latter to take the in
itiative, and Mayor Ely cannot Justify his
neglect to do so by any such weak special
pleading rs he offers as on excuse Tor his in
action. Ii is proper also that he should
ascertain how much money has been re-
ceived as deposits, the names of all deposit
tors, the dates Of their payments and what
use has been made of the fund. The Com
missioners Of Accounts might we'll be set to
work on such an examination