The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1909-05-26
DECISION IS THE FIRST
ONE ON THE POINT
Withdrawal of Names Must Be Made
By Direct Notice to Auditor, and
Cannot Be Made By Power of At
torney - Voter Cannot 0bligate
Himself Not to Exercise Privilege.
TIMES BUREAU
AT THE STATE CAPITAL.

AT THE STATE CAPITAL.
Indianapolis. Ind, May 26.-The SUI
preme court has decided at last just
how a man who has signed a remon-
STRANGE against the granting of a
saloon license may have his name re-
moved from the remonstrance. This is
the first time that a decision directly
on this point has been rendered by
the supreme court, and it is believed it
will clear up many of the problems
that have confronted applicants and
demonstrators all over the state.
A judgment denying Sampson J. Mil
ler's application for a saloon license in
the town of Wolf Lake in Noble county.
was affirmed by the supreme court The
court holds that paper purporting to
be a remonstrance with a number Of
names signed thereto prima facie
proves itself as a valid remonstrance
by qualified voters. and where names
purport to be signed by an attorney in
fact, his authority to sign the names
must be presumed.
The court also held that where six Of
the demonstrators executed powers of
attorney authorizing their attorneys
to sign my name to a withdrawal
from any and all remonstrances," etc,
the mere filing Of such power with the
board of commissioners on the day be-
fore the remonstrance was filed. did
not effect the remonstrance upon its
subsequent presentation with these six
names on 1t. Judge Jordan said:
Appellants counsel contended that
the six persons who signed the remon-
sterance on Friday. after having on
the previous day authorized their names
to be with drawn from any and all re-
monstrances, could not thereafter. as
they did exercise the right of remon-
strating in this case. The contention
cannot be sustained. They clearly had
the right to sign the remoustrance in
question. as they did, Notwithstanding
the previous execution of powers of at
torney authorizing the withdrawal OF
their names from any and all remon
strances.' A voter can no more legally
bind of obligate himself by any act or
| agreement not to exercise the privilege
of demonstrating against the granting
Of a liquor license than he can le
gally obligate himself not to cast his
vote at an election.
But as to these persons"
their extraordinary action in the prem
ises may be said, at least, to afford
room for asserting that they were un-
double-dealing. If these per
sons or any of them did not desire to
have the remonstrance in question filed
on Friday. with their names attached
thereto as demonstrators the proper
method of course for them to have pur-
sued would have been to revoke their
| general power of attorney under which
their authority to sign their names to
! fra M
and by so doing have prevented their
names from being attached to the re-
! monstrance: or, in case their names
| were signed. to have prevented the fl
| ing of the document with the auditor
| with their names attached thereto The
! power of attorney which they appear
| TO have executed. authorizing their
names to be signed to any and all
/ circumstances, was not coupled with
/ any intent. and might have been re-
voked by them. or any of them. at any
! time before the power hereunder con-
! ferred upon the attorney In fact had
been exercised by him The right to
revoke the power previously conferred
upon their attorney in fact they could
! have successfully exercised by fling a
written revocation with the county au-
ditor before the fling Of the remon-
STRANGE on that day.
After the fling of the remonstrance
there could be no revocation of the au-
thority of the attorney in fact which
could affect the particular remonstr-
ance herein involved for the evident
reason that in respect to that power
the attorney in fact already had been
/ fully exercised. Had these persons
| filed their written revocation of the
power of their attorneys in fact, the
fling of the remonstrance thereafter
| with their names thereon would have
been unauthorized. and so far as they
could have been concerned, they could
not have been legally counted as re-
monstrators in this case"