The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1883-04-19
rHE LAST RESORT.
The ConstitutIonalitY of the Kansas
PrOhIbitory Law to BE Tested
in the Supreme Court of the
WTnfAa4 SfaAaa

IN the supreme Court OF the
United States
KANSAS BUREAU OF THE JouRNAL, To-
PEkA, April 1.-THE Kansas prohIbi-
tory question comes mp in new form,
though not in Kansas, as the court of
last resort in this state has given its
opinion to the effect that the law is all
right. constitutional, snd ought to be
enforced. The matter is to be taken to
the supreme court of the United States,
and will 90 there as sooa as the papers
can he made out. Tie funds for this
aRe To be furnished by the National
Brewers association. and United States
Sensior Vest has been retained by the
hefztien TO argue the case. Senator
ests Is DOW here and called upon At
terney General Johnson in reference to
the subject. The senator says he can
get the case advanced upon the docket
of the supreme court 30 that 1t can be
Iargusd by next winter, TO which the at
,forney general stated skfat he had NJ OBJ
lection whatever; 60 as far as he was
concerned he wasAss1 llBgssit should
come up at any time.
THE PARTICULAR CASE
The test case, the one that is to be hon.
Ored with place upon the docket of
the supreme court of the United States,
and which will hereafter be referred to
STheneyer the constitutionality of pro.
hihitoFY laws is attacked, is that of the
State of Kansas vs.. Peter Mugfer, of Sa-
lima. Mugler owns q brewery at Salina,
which Is worth 10000 that is to say,
he estimated it to be worth that amount
previous to the going into force of the
Kansas prohibitory law After the law
went into effect Mugier continued to sell
beer OF his own manufacture. and soon
was arrested, tried and convicted for
violation of the law, and his brewery
shut mp He carried his case to the SUI
preme court of the state, which affirmed
the sentence imposed upon him and dis
PEELED the defense he had set up, to the
effect that through The operation Of the
law the value of his property had depre-
ciated from $4,000 to $2.5O0. Mugler
was of the opinion that as
HE HAD DEEM DAMAGED
IN the amount of $500 he ought 10 be
reimbursed The state supreme court
didn't think so; that is to say, two of
them didn't. the third one, Judge Brew
er suggesting, however, that probably
compensation ought to be allowed
where properly had been taken or de-
slroyed through the operation of state
law. The supreme court argued that
none of MugleF's property had been
taken from him; that his brewery, fully
equipped and ready for business, stood
exactly where it did before, and was still
owned by him; that as the liquor law
existed before, he had to obtain license
wear by year To sell his beer, and that it
was always an uncertainty from one year
to another as TO whether he would obtain
his license or not; that when he put up
the brewery and invested his money in
il he ran the risk OF whatever laws the
people might pass in relation
TO THE REGULATION OF THE TRAFFIC;
in other words, Peter was more Gr less
out of luck because the prohibition law
was so stringently enforced m Saline
county. The supreme court argued that
there were very many things that tend
ed 10 dePreciate or destroy the value of
private property, fer which no comDen-
sstion would be obtained, for instance
the removal of the state capital from
Lecompton, which almost completely
wiped out the value of property there,
| ana yet the people of that place could
get no damage, nor did they think of
asking for any. When a county seat
| was removed from one town to another,
the fact of the removal tended to depre-
ciate the value of property greatly In
the town where the county seat had been
| located, and yet in such case no CON-
pensation could be obtained. The re-
moval of the county seat was the act of
the people, as was also the adoption al
| the prohibitory amendment. 1t has
| heretofore been the impression that Judge
Brewer dissented from the opinion of
the supreme court IN this case, but
SUCH IS NOT THE FACT.
| He assented to the opinion that the SEN
tence imposed by the lower court upon
Mufger was correct, but suggested that
/ where the law so operated as TO depre-
ciate properly or to destroy IT'S value al
together, the sufferer was entitled to
some compensation from the state. Sen
atOr Vest is OF the opinion that because
property can thus be destroyed and its
value lessened the prohibitorY law is
unconstitutional, as 1t deprives man of
bis property rights in defiance of the
national constitution. He is reported as
saying that he thinks he knows the
| opinions of two of the supreme judges
| upon the subject-Matthews and Field
and doesn't seem to have any fears as
to the outcome of the matter. The state
supreme court holds that in the exer-
else of its police power it cannot be
compelled to pay for
| , PROPERTY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED,
especially when the exercise of this
power is for the good of the people, as
| the Enforcement of the prohIbito-y law
! is claimed to be. The case is awaken
| ing great deal of interest, and the re.
suit will be anxiousiy awaited During
the debate in the Legislature in 1881, il
| will be remembered, when the law in
tended to carry out the provisions of the
! prohibitory amendment TO the cOnstitu-
tion- was under consideration, an effort
| to insert a clause whereby the state
should pay the value of property dam
aged through the enforcement of the
| law, but it Was a failure. The pro-
hibiiionists had their minds made up rs
to what they were going TO do, and they
put the law through as they had agre d
| upon. The fear at that time was eX-
pressed that the law was unconstitution-
al upon that account, but as the state
supreme court upheld its validity when
that point was brought up, it now re-
mains for the supreme court Of the Unit
ed states, the tribunal of last resort, 10
pass upon it