The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1886-02-05

The discussion Of the prohibition OF
the liquor traffic attracts much Atten-
tion all over the civilized world, and
every new phase Of the subject Is taken |
up and analysed earnestly by every enc
who seeks solution Of the difficult
problem. Every lover ofsound moral
ity and material progress would rejoice
TO see the eyils attending the traffic
abated but just how this is to be accom-
plishsd is the great question. Judge
Brewer of tho United States District
Court, of Kansas, has lately rendered q
decision which places the question be-
fore the public in materially different
light from that which it has heretofore
occupied. Some time age brewer ss-
tablished himself in the brewing busi-
| ness in Lawrence, Kansas, and erected
buildings and machinery valued at $780,
900. This was before the adoption Of
prohibition. After the adoption OF
prohibition ho applied to the local au.
thorities for a permit to continue the
brewing business, (Which might be done
in the discretion Of local authority for
mechanical purposes, )but his application
was denied, and suit in the State Court
was instituted TO restrain him from
manufacturing beer. He made appli-
cation to Judge Brewer Of the U. s.
Circuit Court to transfer the case to
that court. Upon the hesring of this
application the brewer showed that as
long as he was allowed to use his build
Iings and machinery for brewing purpos-
&c thsy were Of the value Of $50, 900,
but when prohibited from thus using
them they were of tie value Of only
5000. Judge Brewer entertained The
motion for removal of the case on the
ground that the brewer bad iutere1ts
exceeding $500 involved. In lengthy
decision he takes the ground that in the
case Of brsweries and distillsries erected
prior to the adoption OF the prohibitory
legislation, while the State has an un-
doubted right to prohibit both manu-
fscture and sale, it is responsible foI
all damage to property erected for dis
tiiling or brewing purposes. Brew
cries and distillsriss erected after th'
passage Of the amendment do not come
within the scope Of this decision, their
owners erecting than with their eye'
wide open to the law and doing so al
their own risk. This decision differ
very essentially from the opinion oi
Judge Cooley, Of Michigan, Zone Of The
ablestu. constitutional lawyers IN the
country,) who says. that "perhaps there
is no Instance in which the power oi
the Legislature to make such rsgula-
tions as may destroy the value Of prop
erty without compensation to the own
r,appears in a more striking light than
in these statutory prohibitory liquor
laws. The trade in alcoholic drinks
being lawful, and the capital employed
in it being fully protected by Law, the
Legislature then steps in and by an
enactment based upon general reasons
Of public utility annihilateS the traffic
destroys altogether the employment, and
reduces TO a nominal value the property
on hand. A statute which can do this
must be justified upon the highest rea-
sons of public benefit but, whether
satisfactory or mo-, they rest exclusively
in the legislative wisdom" The mag
nitnte of the interests iavolssd Is suifi-
cisnt to Justify the prediction that the
liquor dealers and manufacturers will
resort to every remedy known 70 the
law in resisting prohibition, The con-
test will ultimately be as bitter and un'
| -. Al - mtay.pv nusatiN0 vvaa