The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-11-08

court in the case of James Z. Cham
per against the city Of Greencastle. A
year ago that city passed an ordinance
requiring saloonkeepers to remove all
screens, curtains or other distractions
which might prevent the police from
seeing the patrons Of the bar. In the
enforcement Of the ordinance Champer
was arrested and fined in the mayors
| court. He appealed to the circuit court,
and the judgment Of the mayors court
was affirmed. The appellant claimed
that the ordinance was void because 1t
was unreasonable and oppressive and in
violation of the constitution because it
invades the rights of private property.
Judge McCabe of the supreme court,
in rendering the opinion, said: 1.-The
validity of the ordinance depends upon
| the answer to the question: Had the
municipal corporation Of Greencastle
| the power TO pass the ordinanceY Mu-
| nidpal corporations have such powers on
| ly as are conferred upon them by the
act of the legislature creating them
and such incidental powers as are inn
| piled by their creation. 1t is well set
| tied that the creation of a municipal
corporation carries with it the implica-
/
| cred Ia pass such ordinances and by
| laws as may be needful for its we'll
| being. 1t is also well settled law that
when such an ordinance is passed by
/ such municipality under no other an
! thority than such implied power, the
| ordinance TO be valid must be reasOna-
| BILE; and If il is unreasonable 1t will
| be void
Before we can consider the ques-
! ton whether the ordinance here in
| vOlved Is a reasonable exercise of pow
ers vested i'm the corporation we must
| inquire what the nature and extent of
! the powers are that have been con-
! ferred by the legislature of the state
! upon municipal corporations. Because
! If the legislature has conferred the pow
er 10 pass ordinances Of the specified
| and defined character of the one in @. IS
! ton, then no inquiry can be made as
| 70 the reasOnableness OF the ordinance;
| in that event we would be limited In
| our investigation TO the single question
whether the act of the legislature con-
| ferring the power WAS valid and consti-
J tutional or not The statute upon which
! the claim is based, in this case, that
| the corporation had the power TO pass
! the ordinance here in question, empow
cred cities: TO regulate and license all
| inns. taVerns or other places used or
] kept for public entertainment; also all
shops or other places kept for the sale
| Of liquors TO be used I'm and upon the
| premises Subdivision 13, sec 3106
r. S, 1SSl) And TO regulate all places
| where Intoxicating liquors are sold TO
| be used on the premises Or. S. 1881
sec. 3,154) This is not a specific grant
/ Of power To pass such an ordinance as
here in question. If IL were all in
| quiry would here stop. As IL is not
| ordinances passed under such q general
| grant Of power must be reasonable.
| ConsOnant with the general powers and
| purposes of the corporation and not
| inconsistent with the policy of the state;
| otherwise IL is the duty Of the courts
| 10 declare them void We therefore hold
that the ordinance here involved is open
to the inquiry whether II is a reasona-
! Bile exercise OF the power conferred by
| the legislature
THE ordnance forbids the erection or
| maintenance of door screens. window
| blinds, stained, ground, colored or dark
| openings OF any saloon. shop or other
/ place where intoxicating liquors are sold
| TO be used on the promises. Under this
| ordinance, If void, il would make the
use OF the ordinary screen or window
| shutters. window screens and window
| curtains to the doors or windows Of a
| saloon unlawful and It would likewise
| make IL unlawful to maintain stained
| ground, colored or darkened glass of
/ any kind 10 any such doors or windows.
|
! mon alike 10 all. that the use of door
| screens, window screens, window shut
| ters, window curtains and blinds, ground
| darkened and colOred glass. used In and
| to doors and windows, are among the
comforts and conveniences Of civilized
| life. They are used I'm other business
houses than saloons In private resi-
| dences. In public buildings and offices,
| in hotels and dining halls. in depots
| and court houses and in chucres. In
| deed, II may be said that they are neces-
| sary comforts and conveniences of civil
| lied life as much as houses are to live
| I'm and to do business in. The protection
| OF the occupants of such houses and
places against the fierce rays OF the
| sun, I'm the proper use Of such houses
and places may be almost, If not quite,
as necessary as protection against the
| storm and the rain and the inclemency
| of the weather generally
I'VE cannot concur in the contention
| of appelees that the saloon business is
| an illegitimate one and that In order
| TO make large profits therein IL is neces-
| sary TO constantly violate the law. There
! is no reason for saying that because
some saloonkeepers violate the law all
shall be deprived of the use of the
! necessary comforts and convenienceS Of
| civilized life in their business. IL the
| corporation can make IL unlawful for
| them TO use screens to exclude flies
L
| for them TO use shutters to their doors
/ TO exclude the cold the storm and the
| rain; if il can make ii unlawful for
| them to use window shutters and win
| dow blinds and curtains, colored, stained
| and ground glass in doors and windows
| of their saloons. under the pretense Of
| permitting unobstructed view of
| the interior Of their saloons, the better
to detect violations of the liquor law,
| then there is no reason why they canot
| Of their saloons of solid glass. Indeed,
| IL the corporation has the power to
make the ordinance here in question, then
ii necessarily has the power by ordinance
! to compel them to open the whole front
| of their saloons without even the poor
| privilege of putting solid glass in as a
| protection against storm, rain and the
| inclemencies of the weather, and against
| theft and robbery. There can be no
| doubt that such an ordinance would be
| within the power granted and reasona-
! bic if IL is confined in its operation to
| such times as the saloonkeeper Is not
| allowed to do business, as between IL
| and O'Clock at night, on Sundays and
| legal holidays and other days on which
he is prohibited from doing business.
| I'VE are CT the opinion that the ordi-
nance here invoived goes beyond any
| power conferred upon the common coun-
| Gil either by express statute or by nee
/ essary implication, and is therefore void
| The circuit court erred in overruling
/ the demurrer 10 the complaint.
| 1.-THE judgment Is reversed and the
| cause remanded with instructions to sus-