In the case of The Mayor v. Ray, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of liquor within the city limits was constitutional. The defendant, Ray, had been convicted of violating the ordinance and appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, as it was within the scope of the city's police power. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's power to regulate the sale of liquor within its limits, and that it did not violate any of the rights of the defendant. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not overly restrictive, as it did not prohibit the sale of liquor outside of the city limits. The Court concluded that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that the conviction of the defendant was therefore valid. The Court affirmed the conviction and upheld the ordinance.

In The Mayor v. Ray, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a mayor of an incorporated city had the authority to remove from office any officer appointed by him without cause and without notice or hearing. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that it is not within the power of a mayor to remove officers appointed by him at his pleasure; rather, such removal should only be done for good cause after due process has been provided. He reasoned that if mayors were allowed to exercise their discretion in removing officers as they pleased, then those holding public offices would be subject to arbitrary action and could easily become victims of political favoritism or personal animosity. Furthermore, he argued that allowing mayors unfettered control over appointments would lead them into temptation which might result in corruption and abuse of power. Thus, Justice Field concluded that while it may have been within the scope of legislative powers granted under state law for cities to grant their mayors such broad authority over appointment decisions - something which was not addressed in this case - there must still remain some limits on mayoral discretion when making these decisions so as protect against potential abuses and ensure fairness towards all parties involved