The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-04-26
LICENSE Law SUSTAINED
Judge Sullivan Decides in Favor of the
County Commissioners Action.
The Temperance People Who demonstrated
Against Patrick Ward Are Referred to Other
Legal Measures TO Secure Their Ends.

Judge Sullivan, of the Circuit Court Yesterday
took MP the matter of the application of Patrick
Ward for license to sell liquor, and rendered
an opinion sustaining the County Commission
ers IN granting the license. CAPTAIN Ritter, the
attorney for the prohibitionists. who are push
ing the case to test the stitusionality Of the
law, nled remonstrance with tae commission
ers. setting forth that Ward should not be given
alicense because the statute Jpon which the
application for license is based is in conflict
with the Constitution of Indiana, and therefore
void; because the places and business which
said statute assumes TO license and protect are
in the nature Of things injurious and disastrous
to the public health, morals and peace of the
community. The remonstrants appealing to
the Circuit Corrt the attorney for the appellee
moved to strike out the remonstrancs. and it
was upon this that Judge Sullivan gave his de-
e1sion. in which he said any one who desired to
do so conld sell liquor under the common law.
The only reason" he continued, 1.-THE Board
OF commissioners presumes to grant or refuse
licenses is because this statute says they shall
have that right. The only judicial function the
Board of Commissioners has to perform with ref
erence to granting liquor licenses. is to deter
mine rs to the fitness of the applicant be
granted license, and that is tr1.a because this
statute imposes that duty only upon them. Tn 9
only legal remonstrance that could be fled
against the granting Of license would be one that
alleged the untnsss Of the applicant to sell liquor
because of bad character, or because of failure
on his part to comply with this statute in max
ing his application, and this is true because this
statute provides for no other ground of Tamon-
STRANGE. The only right appeliaat has to appear
in this court is because this statute recognized
the right OF appeal 1t Is not pretended
that the remonstrancs here fled because
of of the reasons pointed out by this statute;
on the contrary, the remonstrAnce was filed for
the alleged reason that this statute itself is void
That is, the appellants recognized the force of
and submitted to the statute by going before
Khn CNnWnr 1fnCN - zo1
and submitted TO the statute by fling o remon-
STRANGE in the only place pointed ont by that
statute where one could be filed, but they failed
to allege In that remonstrance any of the statu-
tory grounds of remonstrance, and therefore the
remembrance is void and of no effect That is,
If the appellant seeks relief under statute he
must comply with the provisions of that statute.
Whether the statute 10 OR Is not constitu-
tional cannot be raised by rernonstrance filed
in accordance with that statute before the
Board of Commissioners as is attempted to be
done here If the statements of the remons-
trance are true, the citizens of this State
not left by law without remedy. If it be true,
alleged IN the demonstrates. ''that the bust
ness which the law assumes to license is IN the
nat ure of things injurious and disastrous, in it's
nature and effect, to the public health, public
morals and public peace, and that the law au-
thorzing the business is unconstitutional and
void, then such business, if these things be
true, is public nuisance, and the law affords
full and ample msans for the abatement OF all
public nuisances. If it is believed that the Ii
cense law is unconstitutional for the reasons al
legged in the remonstranee, then any citizen
may test that question by information or indict-
ment for maintaining public nuisance, and
thereby bring the constitutionality of the law
before the court for settlement. But the
matter 10 here presented, the question of the
constitutionaliry of the law is not before the
court"
The decision was the one that was anticipated
By the prohibitionists, and they st once appealed
the case to the Supreme Court, in accordance
with their original intention. I'VE have only
been beating the brush far said Captain
comes before the Supreme Court new features
will be added and the constitutzonality of the
license law will be thoroughly tested. I have
no doubt bat that it will be declared unconsti-
tutional."