New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1888-10-31
Another IONS Liquor Dseisfsn.

The supreme court at " Washington, REM
dered decision in the celebrated ease Of 1
John s. Kidd, plaintiff is error 70 I. E. Pear
son and S: ]. Loughran. Kidd was an Iowa
distiller, who claimed that under the state
prohibition law the state officials could not
prevent the manufacture of Intoxicating
liquor for export to another state. He
sought to restrain the state officers from
closing up his distillery. He claimed that
he was licensed by the board OF supervisors OF
Polk county to sell liquor for me-
chanical, medical, culinary and sacra-
mental purposes, during the period of the {
alleged violations of the law. His
business in the sale of liquor for other pur-
poses without the state he claimed came un-
der the head of interstate commerce. con-
trollable only by congress: and the state
law, if it sought to prevent that commerce
came in conflict with the constitution OF the
United States. He also claimed that the
statute legalized the manufacture of alcohol
for certain purposes, and thus recognized the
fact that it was q legitimate article Of COM
merce, and not per Sc nuisance. Judge
vas long and comprehensive He said.
ii Tt was of the genius and character OF the
whole government that its action should ap-
ply to those external things which were COM
pletely Within state. The manufacture OF
liquor within the state OF Iowa was no less b
/
ufaeturer intended exporting it. 1t was
clearly within the power of the state to regu-
late the manufacture of honor within jts
limits, whether for domestic or for foreign
conslrn The petitioner made grave
error in saying that the statute
authorized the manufacture of alco-
ghoI The law contained sweeping prohibi-
ton, and all that saved it from complete abb
clifton were the exceptions in favor ofalcohol
used for mechanical, medicinal, culinary and
sacramental purposes. The decision of the
supreme court of Iowa is affirmed
A Des Monies telegram, referring to this de-
cision, SAYS: The supreme courts decision in
ternational distillery, of which he is the
owner, at this place, was received with
much interest. It practically makes no
difference in the status of the dis
tillery, and would not if it had been the re-
verse, for since this litigation WAS begun the
legislature passed a law that has closed all
distilleries and breweries by forbidding the
manufacture for any purpose. Consequently
there is not distillery or brewery running in
the state, and this particular distiilery,
known as the "big distilery" has been closed
since April 1887, when it sold it's capacity
to the Western distillers' pool, and was
closed down by order of the pool The point
OF this decision affected the old law, which
permitted the manufacture for certain pur-
poses The state claimed that the Kidd
distillery had violated that law and
SO should be closed by injunction, which was
issued by the district court of this city. But
the distillery claimed that SO long as it's
product was exported the state could not
Interfere. That position is not sustained by
the United States supreme court. But last
winter the legislature passed a new law, for
bidding all manufacture of liquor and that
law would have closed the distillery, even
had the decision gone the other way. In eff
feet this decision sustains the new law and
renders unnecessary any test ca Sc under it.