The bill then went to the Governor, and by his signature upon the 25th of April became law.

After the passage of the bill by the assembly, Mr. Gilroy, commissioner of public works of New York City, who had been active in securing the repeal, remarked to an assemblyman that the passage of the repeal bill "saved the Tammany organization 20,000 votes at the election this fall."

EXCISE BILLS OF 1892.

In its Annual Record of last year the City Reform Club explained the intimate connection between the liquor trade and the politics of the State of New York. The danger threatened by the bold attempts of the liquor-dealers to mould legislation to their liking, in defiance of public opinion and of fundamental principles of our laws, was pointed out. The history of the session of 1891 made it clear that these attempts would be renewed this year. The very nature of the trade organization made it certain that these attempts would not cease until they succeeded, or until public opinion made it useless to continue them.

The liquor-dealing class organizes for the purpose of advancing the welfare of its members. It enters politics for the purpose of promoting a trade interest. It has always professed that it had no political views, except such as were dictated by trade advantage. It is more completely organized and better equipped than any political party in the state, because its members have, individually, more to gain by such organization than members of any political party have. The headquarters and the most important branch of this organization are in New York City, where the democratic party is at present dominant.

The eight thousand liquor-dealers in New York City receive their licenses from the board of excise, which is

appointed by the mayor, and which is an arm of the party in power. They ply their trade under the supervision of the police department, and are subject to indictment through the district attorney. Both the police department and the district attorney's office are branches of the city government, and are controlled by the dominant party. Thus the party in power in the City of New York has a stronger hold upon the liquor dealers than upon any other class, because it controls the daily conduct of that trade.

The many voluminous excise laws of this state were in a chaotic condition, rendering revision and codification exceedingly desirable. This fact has served as an excuse for the introduction by the liquor-dealers of bills embodying their wishes. In the legislature of 1891 three liquor bills were introduced. Senator Stadler's Dance House bill passed the senate, and failed in the assembly. The Schaff bill, a schedule of the liquor-dealers' demands, aroused general opposition, and was withdrawn at the last moment. The substitute Schaff bill, an even more dangerous measure, drafted by an abler hand, passed the assembly by a strict party vote before the public could discover what it contained, but failed to become law. "The Police Spy Bill" was incorporated in the Schaff bills, and failed with them.

The liquor-dealers were deeply disappointed by the outcome of the session. They had, as they constantly asserted, raised $300,000 for legislative expenses, and had been instrumental in securing democratic ascendency in the assembly.

In the spring of '91 many of the liquor-dealers began to doubt the sincerity of the democratic leaders; and after the close of the session this distrust developed so far as to cause a split in the ranks of the liquor-dealers. The Wine and Spirit Gazette, which had been the official organ of the

Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association, had been threatening revolt; and in the campaign of 1891, it cut loose from the democratic party, and backed the republican ticket. ceased to be the official organ of the Wholesale Association, which still clung to the democratic party.

It

2. To

During the past two years we have had an opportunity to learn what the liquor-dealers demand. The most important of their desires are: 1. To sell liquor on Sunday. This is their chief demand. It is more important in their eyes than all the other demands, for the reason that the breach of the Sunday closing law gives to the police the best opportunity to levy blackmail upon the liquor-dealers. sell liquor on election day. 3. To abolish the civil damage. act, which makes the person selling liquor, and the owner or the lessor of the premises where it is sold, legally liable for damage caused through the intoxication of the person to whom the liquor was sold. The reason assigned for this demand is that the act is unjust in principle in that it makes an owner of premises where liquor is sold responsible for the remote consequences of the sale. The real reason is that the act makes landlords unwilling to rent to liquordealers, and increases the rental of saloons. 4. The passage of a law which shall make it impossible to prove the illegal selling of liquor. 5. Greater security in the tenure of licenses, and the right to buy, to sell, and to bequeath them. 6. Several new classes of licenses. All night licenses, on the ground that such licenses are necessary for the balls of respectable German societies, and that large classes of the population, such as printers and newspaper men, do not go to bed at night, and ought to be supplied with liquor.

All these demands of the liquor-dealers were embodied in the Schaff Excise Bills of 1891, and re-appeared this year in the Foley Excise Bill, which became law.

THE FOLEY EXCISE ACT.

Assembly bill Nos. 461, 1087, 1432 and 1521, introduced by Mr. Foley of New York, and Senate bill No. 228, introduced by Mr. Endres of Buffalo.

LAWS OF 1892, CHAPTER 401.

The Foley bill was acknowledged to be a codification of the desires of the liquor-dealers. It was drawn by Professor Charles A. Collin of Cornell University, who was credited with the authorship of the iniquitous Schaff Substitute Bill of 1891. The two bills are much alike.

The Foley bill consisted of forty-two sections, covering twenty-five printed pages, and in general plan and scope was much like the Schaff excise bills of 1891. It was designed to make it as difficult as possible to punish the liquor-dealer civilly or criminally for violating the law. It went as far in this direction as the liquor-dealers thought it safe to go. It proposed to sweep away nearly all the wholesome restrictions that the law had placed upon the liquor traffic in this State. A full analysis of the bill will not be attempted. It became law with certain modifications under the title of "An Act to "revise and consolidate the laws relating to the sale of intoxi"cating liquors." The chief provisions of the Act will be explained:

66

Section 18 prohibits the granting of "any licenses to any person or persons unless each such person is over twenty"one years of age," and is a citizen and a resident of this State. The assumption that the privilege of keeping a liquor saloon should be reserved for citizens is perhaps merely ludicrous; but it must be observed that the effect of this provision would be to make it more probable that every liquor-dealer would be interested in politics, and would be amenable to party discipline.

Sub-division 6 of section 19 provides that " an additional

66

license may be granted upon application when it shall appear that public necessity requires that such licensed 66 premises remain open between the hours of one and five "o'clock in the morning, and for which the fee shall not be "less than thirty dollars nor more than one hundred and "fifty dollars." This seeks to incorporate in our law the theory that public necessity requires the liquor-saloon. The judges of "public necessity" in any case would be the local excise commissioners, and, under this provision, if they were so disposed, they might grant all-night licenses to all the liquor-saloons within their jurisdiction.

But if the liquor-dealers want to enlarge the power of commissioners of excise to grant licenses, they want also to limit the power to refuse and to revoke licenses. Accordingly, section 24 gives to any applicant to whom the commissioners have refused a license, the right to procure from the courts a writ of certiorari. The courts can then inquire into the action of the commissioners, and make an order requiring them to issue a license, if the courts determine that the refusal was "without good and valid reasons." Section 29 gives the same right to any licensee whom the commissioners find guilty of violating the law, or whose license they have revoked. These provisions will be invoked to protect law-breakers, and to deprive the commissioners of all discretion in the exercise of the most important functions that they have to perform for the community. It is true that the ostensible purpose of these sections is to prevent wanton and arbitrary exercise of power by the commissioners. But no provision is made in the act for a review of any decision of the commissioners favorable to the liquor dealer. Citizens who complain of the improper granting of a license or of the improper refusal to revoke a license, have no express remedy under this act. When the matter comes before the