The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-07
JOURNAL, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER T.
OFFICIALS WHO DISAGREE
Mayor Grubbs Objects to Superintend-
ent Robbins's 'Higher Laws"
And Refuses to Fine VioIators of Them
The Commissioners Will Be Asked
to "Take Action"

The "higher law" of Major Robbins was
brought down to the level of it's worthlessness
in the City Court yesterday morning. When the
metropolitan police assumed authority and Major
Robbins was elevated to the position of superin-
tendent, the change was in the nature of an
"about face" on the system OF Furnishing misde-
meanors by the enforcement OF the law violated.
The superintendent came to the conclusion
that the statutory law was at least impoltic,
and, in disregard of his oath of office, began
acting "higher law" in the form of orders. The
statutory law was disregarded so far as it re-
lated to the saloon business The order went
forth from the superintendent that the saloons
should close at IL O'Clock, although the law re-
quired that they shall be closed at IL;
but he even more rankly exceeded his power
and violated his sworn duty by ordering the
patrOlmen to notify the saloon-keepers that
they might sell liquor Sunday, but they
would be required to keep front doors closed,
and permit games during the day. II any
saloOn-keeper should not comply with these
conditions, he would be prosecuted under the
law against selling liquor on Sunday
Having been given the permission of an officer
to transgress the law of the State, the saloon
keepers very reasonably supposed that they
could, with impunity, dsobey mere order that
was supported by no law. The order, however,
was made the law, and all who have Ignored 1T
have been prosecuted for violation of the Sun
day law. This sort of thing has continued for
several weeks.
Yesterday morning the superintendent
brought into court three cases of viola
lions Of the Sunday law, which were
being presented simply on account of a disobe-
dience of the "higher law order. Joe VAN
baugh a bar-keeper for Steve Mattler, was one
of the defendants. He was asked by the Super
infa hafn hnr INln And nj l hn
would plead guilty. Refusing to do so he was
informed that two additional charges would be
nS@Se against shs n would ID poss
little to find the law giving him
authority to dismiss any case. Wam-
baugh refused to accede to the proposition and
went into trial. The policeman, who testified in
the prosecution, stated that 1t was known that
liquor was sold at nearly all the saloons in the
although selling liquor in violation of the law,
would not have been arrested if it had
permitted TO engage in game of
cards In his saloon. The Mayor dismissed
the case stating that there is no law to compel
the closing OF the doors of saloon on Sunday,
and that there is no law prohibiting card-playing
where there is no betting But there is a
statute" he added, (which forbids the selling or
giving away of intoxicating liquors on Sunday"
it was not claimed that the arrests were made
for selling liquor, but, on the contrary,
1t distinctly and positively stated,
under oath, that no arrests would have
been made If there had been no card-playing,
force the law, but simply TO enforce an unlawful
regulation made by the superintendent of police.
In dismssing the case, the Mayor remarked
my ruling may be a little singular; but there
has been good deal of law made since the ad-
journment of the last Legislature, by other par
ues, and don't see why / also haven't equal
authority to make little"
"Is the court done2" asked the Superintend-
ent of Police, who well understood the full mean
ing of the Mayors remarks. The May replied
that "the prosecutor may have something
more" but the prosecuted disappeared
"You were present." the Superintendent said,
"with the board and prosecutor when we agreed
o.this."
81 never consented to any such agreement and
never would" the Mayor remarked, as he left
Gan the same" the superintendent said,
"these men will be defendants in this court next
Monday morning il l catch them violating my
order"
Superintendent Robbins, when asked last
night ABOUT the actlon OF 9ne mayor, saiu we'll
the Mayor has just got little cranky and taken
the bits IN his mouth"
"Was there ever any agreement between you
and the Mayor that saloon-keepers would be
fined under the Sunday law il they dIsobeyed
your Orders2" asked.
'That is simply matter of veracity between
the Mayor and me, and / don't care to make 1t
question of veracity."isf
what was the nature of this agreement"
sit was argeed that whatever orders should
make for the regulation of the saloon business
should be enforced, and, therefore, issued the
IL o'clock order. | gave notice taat would
rests if the front doors should be kept closed,
and no gaming should be allowed. However,
if any citizen should file against saloon keeper
for violation of the Sunday law, of course
would have him arrested; but no patrolmen
would go into saloon to make an arrest unless
there was gaming OF the front door should be
found OPEN"
WAS this order approved by the police COM
missioners?"
at was neither approved nor disapproved.
The commissioners took notice of it,"
'Will you continue to make arrests for DISC
bedence of your orders2"
81 certainly shall. Simply because the Mayor
gets little cranky am not going to let up. If
the police commissioners take any action upon
the matter, then it will be different"
''What will the commissioners be likely to dot"
"If they take any action, it will be to order
the enforcement of the IL O'Clock law and the
closing of the Saloons"
Mayor Gfubbs seems to have become awearied
at the "higher law" practices of the police, and
to have taken stand from which he says he
will not retreat. Major Robbins may regard the
Mayors action cranky" but the latter ex-
presses mis- determination to either insist upon
an enforcement of the laws as they are, or to ig
more the pompous orders of the superintendent
1t would be the proper thing, it seems, for the
commissioners to "take action"