The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-26
LEGAL RIGHTS OF BREWERS.
Grounds Upon Which Brewers of Atlanta
VIII Refuse to Heed Prohibitory Laws.


VIII Refuse to Heed Prohibitory Laws.
Atlanta Constitution.
There will be no attempt to open bars for the
sale of beer, nor will any attempt be made in any
way to alter the plans heretofore pursued by the
brewery. Beer will continue to be manufact
ured, and it will be delivered by delivery wagons
to anybody in the city who may desire to buy it.
In other words, the brewery will continue its
business just as if the question of prohibition
had never been heard of il Atlanta or anywhere
else.
1t is hoped by Messrs Smith & New. a. /.
the city and county authorities 49, not intsrfars
with the brewerys business, but if they should
sucn interference will be resented in the courts
Yesterday Constitution reporter obtained
from Mr.. Smith statement of the grounds
upon which the brewery claims the right to con-
tinue its business.
Il wish it distinctly understood" Mr. Smith
said, ''that the brewery will do nothing which it
has not the legal right to do. I would not, for
an instant, think of advising the concern to vio-
late the law; simply advise it TO do what it has
an undeniable legal right to do 1t will main
tain its legal rights; that is all"
"What are its legal rightsl"
"Why, to manufacture beer and sell IL. The
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution Of the
United States declares that no citizen Of any
State shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law. The
brewery has property valued at $1500O0 For
any other purpose than the manufacture of beer
that property, at the highest estimate, would
| not be worth more than $4,000 If prohibition
/, n Atlanta compei5 the brewery to cease to man
ufacture and sell beer it will suffer dead loss
of $l35.OOO In other wo.sss if prohibition
closes The brewerys business, it WIN a.. eHect
conflscate property to the value of $135, 00O
Such a result will be a plain vio-
| lation Of the fourteenth amendment
to the Constitution. The local-option law. I'M
der which Fulton county has voted TO prohibit
the manufacture and sale of liquor. does not pro-
vide compensation for losses, such as the brew
erySwould sustain should it be compelled to cease
to use its plant Compelling it to do so, there
fore, would be depriving it's owners of their
property without due process of law"
Has the question been decided in the courtsp
Yes. question exactly similar has been de-
cided by Judge Brewer of the United States
Circuit Court for Kansas. The decision does
not deny the right of State to prohibit the
manufacture and sale OF liquor-beer in this in
stance-but it holds that where such prohibition
entails a loss upon the plant or property of the
manufacturer without providing compensation,
it is a violation of the fourteenth amendment,
and, therefore, unconstitutional"
Mr.. Smith read decision of the United States
Supreme Court in which the inference was that
the court would sustain Judge Brewers decision.
Justice Miller, In the decision ntilnated that he
would be in favor of sustaining the decision.
Justice Bradley virtually declared that he would
do whenever he should have to pass upon the
question, and Justice Field unaualifedly de-
clared that lit was wicked law which would 50
deprive the citizen of his property" and that he
would sustain the decision.
$50 you see, continued Mr.. Smith, "that there
is no doubt about the legal right of the brewery
TO continue its business, and, as / have already
said, that is what it will do.n