The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-16
POWER TO REVOKE LICENSES.

The lay mind will not be able to un-
derstand the process of reasoning by
which Judge Harvey reaches the con-
clusion that the provision in the city
charter which gives the Mayor discre-
tionary power to revoke a saloon keep
er's license is unconstitutional. The
Mayors authority in this respect. as in
many others under the charter. is de-
lived directly from the Legislature. 1t
is true. as Judge Harvey argues. that
the City Council could not enlarge this
power. but as the charter makes it abb
solute there does not seem to be any
necessity for such enlargement. Sec
ton As of the charter names, among
various other powers of the Mayor, hat
ito sign all bonds, deeds and written
contracts of the corporation and all
licenses issued pursuant to law by any
department. and to revoke or suspend
any such license" The charter is a
special act of the Legislature. 1t was
intended to create a special form of
government for this city presumably
better than that which it a before.
Under the general law the Mayor of a
city has no power to revoke a saloon
keepers license for any cause what
ever. In view of the provision of the
charter above quoted it is fair to as
sumo hat when the Legislature gave
the Mayor of Indianapolis power to re-
woke or suspend any license granted by
any department of the city government
1t intended to give him a new and en-
larged power commensurate with the
better form of government which the
charter was intended to create. 1t
could not with any show of reason be
claimed that the Council could confer
on the Mayor the power to revoke
saloon licenses because the Council
itself has not the power, but it will not
be denied that the Legislature which
passed the license law could confer such
power. and it is difficult to see how it
could have lone SO in palmer words.
A license to sell liquor is a privilege.
1t is true. as Judge Harvey says, that
the business is a legal one. but it is
only legal when carried on in accord
ance with the regulations prescribed by
law. No person can sell liquor without
a license nor on certain prohibited days
or during certain prohibited hours. The
saloon keeper gets his license on the
implied condition that ne will comply
selling. This is a part of the contract.
1t is reasonable to suppose that in grant
ing a new charter to the city the Legis-
lature intended to confer on the Mayor
a new wv to enforce compliance on
the part of saloon keepers with the
terms of the contract under which they
are permitted to do business. To deny
that the Mayor has such power is to
deny the right of the Legislature to
prescribe any conditions under which a
saloon keepers license may be revoked.
That would be absurd. The license law
says that every person who shall sell,
barter or give away any intoxicating
liquors in violation of any of the pro-
visions of this act shall be personally
liable and also liable on his bond in
that the Legislature might have added,
and the County Commissioners shall
have authority to revok such PERSONS
license" They did not give that power
to count commissioners, but they gave
it in plain terms to the Mayor of In
dianapolis.
Judge Harvey's argument that the
provision in the charter is au~nconstitu-
tionai because such a discretionary
power is too great to be lodged with
any official is not to the point. The
question is not whether the power is
too great to be conferred on the Mayor,
but whether the Legislature has cor
ferred it. A saloon keepers license is
no more sacred than an a~uctioneer's
license, a peddler's license. an express
mans license. a hotel license or a score
of others provided for under the city
government, any of which the Mayor
may suspend or vok in his discre-
ton. Judge Harvey's argument proves