The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1910-08-25
Judge Randall Holds Captain
Warrender Guilty in the
Sandsueker Case
SEES JURISDICTION FOR CITY
Court Holds. That Warrender Violated
the Ordinance and is Responsible for
the Penalty Prescribed-To Go To
Supreme Court

The city has won first blood in the
fight for the protection of the lake shore
against the coming of the sand scoWs as
this morning in the Municipal Court.
Judge Randall held Captain Arthur
Warrender of Milwaukee, guilty OF
violating the city ordinance. In a
lengthy opinion the court held that the
city had the right to pass such an ordi-
nance, and that it's jurisdiction over
the. lake shore to a. point 1000 feet from
the beach was clearly established. 1t
is understood that this is simply the
first round in the fight against the
sand scoWs and the Attorney for War
render will undoubtedly carry the case
to the Supreme Court. Many cities in
the state will watch with interest the
outcome Of the case In his decision
on the case Judge Randall says:
Z Il: It is contended by defendant that
the plaintiff, City of Kenosha, had no
power under the Charter to pass Ordi-
nance number 354, the provisions of
which defendant is alleged to have VIC
lated. The obvious purpose of the ordi-
nance is to protect the beach and har-
Dor of Kenosha on Lake Michigan and
TO protect the City of Kenosha from
the Entertainments of Lake Michigan,
This authority is clearly conferred by
the City Charter, which expressly grants
to the City Of Kenosha authority ito
prevent and remove ali distinctions
Within, or encroachments upon the har-
bor,, etc. Further, the charter author
ICES the common council to pass ordi-
nances for the protection of property,
and ito authorize the construction Of
suitable piers, ETC., and such other pro-
tections as may be planned or devised
for the. purpose of protecting the lake
shore within the limits of said city
from the encroachments of the waters
of Lake, Michigan. - There cannot be
any doubt but that the City had the
power to pass the ordinance in ques-
tion.
- q. BECK %. Tvs. Milwaukee, 139 Wis,
$40, at SAT.
1t is also clear that the Common
Council has jurisdiction of the lake
frontage within distance of 1000 feet
East from the water line, for Section /,
Chapter ] of the Charter of the City
Of Kenosha, defining its boundaries,
after describing certain lands, says that
such lands together with that part
Of Lake Michigan due East of the
same, within one-fourth of mile there
of, shall be the City Of Kenosha.
c.. BECK Co. VS.. Milwaukee, 139 Wis,
$40, at .347.
The right of the City of Kenosha to
49, 1f=
pass the ordinance in question does not
rest upon implied power for authority,
since express authority to protect the
harbor and lake shore is granted by the
charter. There has been nothing shown
to this court, that the ordinance in ques-
ton, when properly interpreted, is in
conflict with the State or Federal con-
stitutions or any, law in this state. The
supreme court of this state has re-
peatedly upheld the power of municipal
tiles to protect by proper regulations
their harbors and lake shore within
their limits.
Claso1 VS. Milwaulxes, 80 Wis, 3l6.,
The operation of the ordinance is
plainly confined to the shore or beach
and such distance into the water as is
necessary for the protection Of the
shore. aaft
Defendant contends that the action
now pending is not civil action but
is a criminal proceeding
Sec. Z, Chap v of the charter of the
city provides that the common council
nshali have power to declare and i'm
pose penalties, and to enforce the same
by fine or Imprisonment, against
any person or persons who may violate
any Of the provisions Of any ordi-
nance. 49,.
Sec. Chap. XIII Of the charter
provides that in all suits for any
violation of any ordinance, the
frs process may be by warrant.
The violation, of the ordinance is not
made criminal effense, but penalty
is provided for its violation. A viola
ton of it is not a misdemeanor. The
penalty is recovered by civil. action
under the ordinance.
c. Beck Co. VS.. Milwaukee, 1885,,
Wis, $40.
1T may be true that ordinance is not
definite and certain, or that it is not
reasonable or it may be faulty for
other reasons, but this court has moth
ing before it to, show that the ordiil-
ance is void for any of such reasons.
The ordinance having been passed by
the city under express authority granted
-, 80 oba r+or fba or1.xz.. .l.5