New York City members voted as follows: :AYES. Messrs. Ahearn, Brown, Cantor, Hagan, McMahon, Plunkitt and Roesch.—7.

The bill was then sent to the Governor, and by his signature became law upon the 30th of April.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY EXCISE ACTS.

THE "CIVIL DAMAGE" ACT.

LAWS OF 1892, CHAPTER

402.

Senate bill introductory No. 841, not printed, introduced by Mr. Cantor of New York.

THE DRUGGISTS' LICENSE ACT.

LAWS OF 1892, CHAPTER 403.

Senate bill introductory No. 842, not printed, introduced by Mr. Cantor of New York.

During the passage of the Foley bill in the senate, and near the end of the session, the opponents of the bill raised the objections that druggists were treated unfairly in the bill, and that the "civil damage" clause was not sufficiently stringent. The democratic members, rather than imperil the passage of the bill at that late day, agreed to introduce and pass separate measures covering these grounds. Accordingly, Senator Cantor introduced two bills. One provided that a storekeeper's license might be issued to a druggist, and the other provided that actions might be brought, and damages recovered, from the person selling liquor, or the owner or lessor of the premises where liquor was sold, when such selling resulted in intoxication and damage by the intoxicated person provided that written notice had previously been served upon the licensee or his agents. While this provision, which extends to the owner or lessor of the premises where the liquor is sold liability for damage, is an im

provement upon section 40 of the Foley act, the effect is still a practical nullification of the "civil damage act." It is hardly necessary to point out the fact that to require such written notice works a practical repeal of the "civil damage act" as to all cities and large towns. The two acts were passed by practically the same vote as the Foley act, and became respectively chapters 401 and 402 of the laws of 1892.

THE VERIFIED EXCISE COMPLAINT ACT.

LAWS OF 1892, CHAPTER 265.

Senate Bill No. 194.

Introduced by Mr. Plunkitt of New
York.

The bill was known as the "Verified Excise Complaint Bill," because in its original form it provided that complaints made against liquor-dealers for violating the excise law should be verified "in the same manner as pleadings are required to be verified in the Code of Civil Procedure.' It is of special importance as showing the willingness of the legislature to come to the aid of politicians holding public office who are charged with offences against the law. A short summary of the events which preceded the passage of this bill will show its pernicious character. In 1889 the excise commissioners of the City of New York failed in their duty, in refusing to revoke the licenses of certain liquor-dealers who had violated the law. For this refusal to perform their official duty, the commissioners were indicted in May, 1890, and were brought to trial in March, 1891. On the trial, Recorder Smythe directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that there was a material variance between the indictment and the proof. The commissioners were re-indicted in April, 1891. On the second trial, in the latter part of April, 1891, the plea of former acquittal was interposed. A verdict was directed

for the people, but judgment was arrested, in order that the question as to former acquittal might be determined by a higher court. In October, 1891, the General Term vacated this order of arrest of judgment. The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in March, 1892, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Code did not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeals. An amendment to the law was then passed by the legislature, granting the right to appeal, thus allowing the question of former acquittal to come before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on the 26th of April, 1892, affirmed the decision of the General Term, and thus removed the technical objection to the trial of the defendants on the merits. On May 16th, 1892, the commissioners were brought before Judge Ingraham, at Oyer and Terminer for trial. The bill under consideration had become law on the 9th day of April, 1892. This act related exclusively to the duties of the board of excise in regard to complaints preferred against liquor-dealers, and upon its face merely made two or three desirable changes in the law. But Judge Ingraham held that the act repealed the law under which the commissioners had been indicted, and that the indictment could not stand. In dismissing the indictment, Judge Ingraham said: "I regret to see that the legislature nas thus provided a new avenue of escape from punishment for crime."

While the purpose of the bill was to defeat the prosecution of the excise commissioners, the bill was so drawn that this purpose was not apparent. It would not be safe, therefore, to charge those who voted for it with a deliberate intention to aid the guilty officials in escaping punishment. At the same time, senators and assemblymen from this city knew that these commissioners had long been under indictment, and had resorted to every possible device to pre

vent the trial of their case upon its merits. These senators and assemblymen also knew that the Foley Excise bill, introduced early in the session, was supposed to cover the whole ground of excise legislation. Senator Plunkitt, in speaking for the bill upon the floor of the Senate, stated that he had introduced the bill at the request of the excise commissioners of New York City. These facts should have led any honest member of the legislature to subject the bill to the most careful scrutiny, and to satisfy himself as to the motive behind the bill. That some ulterior motive was to be looked for, was evident from Senator Plunkitt's open statement that the bill had come to him from the indicted commissioners. The provisions of this bill appeared also in the Foley Excise Bill, and the obvious attempt to separate them, and to pass the Verified Complaint Bill ahead of the Foley Bill, indicated that the commissioners had some special reason for desiring the immediate passage of the Verified Complaint Bill.

The bill was introduced in the Senate on the 27th of January, and referred to the committee on judiciary (Mr. Roesch of New York, chairman). Upon the 4th of February it was reported favorably by this committee, and was ordered to a third reading. On the 10th of February it came up for final passage, and was defeated by a vote of 16 to 14. Seventeen votes were necessary to pass it.

:

New York City members voted as follows:AYES. -Messrs. Ahearn, Cantor, Hagan, McMahon, Plunkitt and Roesch.-6.

NOES.-Mr. Brown.

Mr. Plunkitt then made the usual parliamentary motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was lost, and to lay the motion on the table, which was carried.

Upon the 16th of February Mr. Plunkitt called this motion from the table. The vote by which the bill was lost

was then reconsidered, and the bill passed by a vote of 18 to 8.

New York City members voted as follows:-
:-

AYES.-Messrs. Ahearn, Cantor, Hagan, McMahon, Plunkitt and Roesch.

Mr. Brown was absent.

At this time Mr. Plunkitt acknowledged that he had received the bill from the Board of Excise in the City of New York, and that they desired the passage of the bill upon the grounds that the requirement that complaints should be verified would prevent irresponsible persons from blackmailing liquor-dealers by means of unfounded complaints. Upon this representation several of the senators from the interior voted for the bill.

The bill was then sent to the Assembly for concurrence, and referred to the committee on excise (Mr. Foley of New York, chairman). It was reported favorably by this committee upon the 26th of February, and ordered to a second reading. Upon the 14th of March it came up for final passage, and was defeated by a vote of 53 to 38, sixty-five votes being necessary to pass it.

New York City members voted as follows:

AYES.-Messrs. Byrne, Connelly, Dinkelspiel, Duffy, Farquhar, Foley, Hahlo, Martin, McManus, Mullaney, O'Dair, Roche, Sohmer, Southworth, Stein, Sullivan, Sulzer, Walker, Webster and Wissig.-20.

NOES.-Messrs. Conkling, Hoag and Wells.-3.

NOT VOTING.-Mr. Dinkelspiel.

Mr. Foley then made the usual motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was lost and to lay the motion on the table, which was carried.

Upon April 6th, Mr. Sulzer called this motion from the table. The vote was reconsidered. Mr. Husted of West