South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-08-05
MAYORS NEVER
HAD AUTHORITY
Judge Ford'S Ruling in Saloon
Cases Not Based on the
Proctor Law.

Discussion Of the decision of Judge
Ford OF the superior court in the case
Of Edward Keller against Mayor Kel-
Ter. instituted 10 restrain the latter
from enforcing an order 10 revoke a
liquor license. has brought 10 light
misunderstanding as to the courts
grounds for ruling against the mayor.
The case came up Tuesday afternoon.
Edward Keller, administrator OF the
estate OF William Bivans, sought TO
have set aside order of the mayors
whereby the license held by the Flat
Iron saloon was revoked on the
grounds that the saloon had been open
on a legal holiday. The court found
for the plaintiff and held that the au-
thority 10 revoke liquor license was
held solely by the county commission
ers and the circuit and superior courts
The decision handed down by Judge
Ford was based on these points:
The mayor of the city of South Bend
has not now nor has ne ever possessed,
under any law. the power TO revoke
liquor license issued by the board OF
commissioners of St Joseph county
His attempt to revoke the license in
this case was a plain usurpation OF
authority.
Further, in the opinion of the court,
the legislature no doubt might have
conferred such power on the mayor
bul IL mas never uOne so. Inc power
TO veto, suspend. rescind or revoke the
orders of the county commissioners is
very wisely withheld from the
mayor. The city Of South Bend and
the county Of st. Joseph are two diff
ferent legal subdivisions of the state
and each is given such share of the
general police powers Of the state as
the legislature in its wisdom saw fit
TO delegate TO it-that an no more.
Proctor Law Not AbrOgatiNe.
The statute. sub. s, Burns statutes
1852 (acts Of 1905. p. 1860, under
which the mayor assumed authority to
revoke the license in this case. is still
in full force and effect and il was not
repealed by the act of 1911 (the Proc
tor law. The provisions of this stat
ute have been contained in substance
in every cities and towns law for
more than 90 years and no court OF
Indiana has ever held that under this
law a mayor could revoke license is
sued by the board of county commits
sioners. The law confers on the mayor
the authority to revoke. or otherwise
dispose Of licenses issued by a city
under ordinances. as for peddlers.
huskers, carnivals and other amuse-
ments. He may revoke such license
in the manner attempted by him in
the Keller case and the proctor case
does not abrogate his authority in this
/ lNSptNb' Ht Ildgbl ildc uO duNubllla
except that given to him by ordinances
of statutes.
The mayors Of Indiana cities never
/ had power, under any former legisla-
! ton on this subject, to suspend or
revoke a liquor license or any other
| license issued by the board of county
commissioners. The only new provi-
sion in the Proctor law which has any
I bearing on this subject is one which
/ gives to the circuit and superior courts
| the power to suspend and revoke Ii
/ quor licenses. This power was not
! possessed by these courts before the
/ act of 1911.
Judge FOrd's decision was not based
/ on the Proctor law and he did not, in
/ his remarks last Tuesday. refer TO the
| Proctor law except to call attention to
/ the fact that jurisdiction to suspend
and revoke liquor licenses was, by that
| law. vested also in the circuit and SUI
/ perior courts of the state, whereas,
| before its enactment. the sole power
was vested in the county commission
ers